Skip to main content

Full text of "Emanuel Fritz, teacher, editor and forestry consultant : transcript, 1958-1967"

See other formats

Oral History Office Regional Oral History Office 

Forest History Society >ne Bancroft Library 

Santa Cruz, California University of California, Berkeley 

Emanuel Fritz 
Teacher, Editor, and Forestry Consultant 

An Interview Conducted by 
Elwood R. Maunder 

Amelia R. Fry 

(5) 1972 by The Forest History Society and 
the Regents of the University of California 

All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal 
agreement between the Directors of the Forest History 
Society and the Regents of the University of California 
and Emanuel Fritz, dated 16 September 1969. The manu 
script 1s thereby made available for research purposes. 
All literary rights in the manuscript, including the 
right to publish, are reserved to Emanuel Fritz during 
his lifetime and to the Forest History Society and the 
University of California thereafter. No part of the 
manuscript may be quoted for publication without the 
written permission of the Executive Director of the 
Forest History Society or the Director of The Bancroft 
Library of the University of California. 

Requests for permission to quote for publication 
should be addressed to Forest History Society, P.O. Box 
1581, Santa Cruz, California 95060, or the Regional Oral 
History Office, 486 Bancroft Library, University of 
California, Berkeley, California 97420, and should 
include identification of the specific passages to be 
quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identifica 
tion of the user. The legal agreement with Emanuel 
Fritz requires that he be notified of the request and 
allowed thirty days in which to respond. 


This interview is part of a series produced by the 
Regional Oral History Office of Bancroft Library, University of 
California at Berkeley, under a grant from the Forest History 
Society, whose funding was made possible by the Hill Family 
Foundation . 

Transcripts in the series consist of interviews with: 
DeWitt Nelson, retired head of the Department of Natural Resources, 
California; William R. Schofield, lobbyist for timber owners, Cal 
ifornia Legislature; Rex Black, also lobbyist for timber owners, 
California Legislature; Walter F. McCuIloch, retired Dean of the 
School of Forestry, Oregon State University, Con/all is, Oregon; 
Thornton Munger, retired head of U.S. Forest Service Experiment 
Station, Pacific Northwest Region; Leo Isaac, reti red, si I viculture 
research in the Forest Service Experiment Station, Pacific North 
west Region; and Walter Lund, retired chief, Division of Timber 
Management, Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service; 
Richard Colgan, retired forester for Diamond Match Lumber Company; 
Myron Krueger, professor of forestry, emeritus, U.C. Berkeley; and 
Woodbridge Metcalf, retired extension forester, U.C. Berkeley. 
Copies of the manuscripts are on deposit in the Bancroft Library, 
University of California at Los Angeles; and the Forest History 
Society, University of California at Santa Cruz. 

Interviews done for the Forest History Society under other 
auspices include: Emanuel Fritz, professor of forestry, Univer 
sity of California, Berkeley, with funding from the California Red 
wood Association; and a forest genetics series on the Eddy Tree 
Breeding Station with tapes by W.C. Gumming, A.R. Liddicoet, N.T. 
Mirov, Mrs. Lloyd Austin, Jack Carpender, and F.I. Righter, cur 
rently funded by the Forest History Society Oral History Program. 

The Regional Oral History Office was established to tape 
record autobiographical interviews with persons prominent in the 
history of the West. The Office is under the administrative 
supervision of the Director of the Bancroft Library. 

Wi I la Klug Baum, Head 
Regional Oral History Office 

Regional Oral History Office 
Room 486 The Bancroft Library 
University of California 
Berkeley, California 



PREFACE by Henry J. Vaux v 

INTRODUCTION by Elwood R. Maunder vii 


The Fritz Family in Baltimore 1 
Baltimore Polytechnic 

Cornell University 11 
Teaching at Baltimore Polytechnic 

Botany in Cornell Summer School 18 


Classes, Professors, and Field Work 20 

Gifford Pinchot 27 

Contrasts in Forestry Education 32 


The Context of Government and Industry 36 

In the New Hampshire Forestry Department 40 

In Montana and Idaho With the U.S. Forest Service 47 

Fort Valley Experiment Station, Arizona 59 




Courses 79 

Faculty 90 

German vs. American Forestry in Early 1900 s 97 

A School of Forestry at Stanford? 103 


Second Growth Investigation 107 

Projects With the U.S. Forest Service 117 

Industry Cooperation and Forestry Attempts 127 

The Union Lumber Company 127 

Consulting in the Redwoods 130 

The Tree Farm Movement 138 

CRA forester for the NIRA Lumber Code (Article X) 141 

Logging Conferences 145 


Role of the Society 151 

Journal of Forestry Work 157 

The "UnhoTy Twelve Apostles" 173 

Reed s Dismissal 189 

Protection of Members 202 

The Cox Case 202 

The Black Case 208 


H.H. Chapman 221 


S.A.F. Revolt: Chapman vs. Interior Foresters 236 
Pinchot s Tour in the West During the Transfer Controversy 238 


Legislation Attempts for Acquisition of Cutover Lands 242 
Consultant to the Legislative Forestry Study Committee 

(The Biggar Committee) 250 

The Legislation 257 

The Douglas Fir Region 265 

The Redwood Region 270 





INDEX 318 


If one were to characterize in one word tne personality and impact of 
Emanuel Fritz whether as professional forester or as teacher no doubt 
the word should be independence. Fritz s career included work in a wide 
variety of professional contexts: in forestry education at the University 
of California; in government programs in the Forest Service and Department 
of the Interior; in organized industry with the California Redwood 
Association; in the organized profession as editor of the Journal of 
Forestry; and in a considerable array of private relationships as a highly 
respected consultant. But within each and every one of these varied 
contexts, Fritz was always Fritz. 

I knew him first as one of his students. It was in the mid-1950s 
when forestry seemed, in the eyes of most, to have become largely a 
government enterprise and when industrial forestry seemed impotent, if not 
actually dead. But Fritz confidently offered his students a different 
view, a vision of commercial forestry on a sound financial base imbued 
with the vitality inherent in an important sector of modern industry. 
This was truly only a vision in the 1930s, but it was due in no small 
measure to men like Fritz, and the students intrigued by his ideas, that 
the vision of the Thirties became the reality of the Sixties. 

Fritz has never been reluctant to speak his views plainly, even 
bluntly. He has no hesitation in challenging the "conventional wisdom" 
and does so in any gathering where he can arouse interest in forestry. 
As a result, to many within the profession he has often appeared as a 
dissenter. But these same qualities have given him the interested atten 
tion of people outside of forestry. Not only did this earn him the 
cognomen of "Mr. Redwood" among many Ca I ifornians, but, more importantly, 
it introduced basic ideas of forest management among many land owners and 
public officials who simply were not hearing the forestry message being 
preached in other quarters. Foresters have often been self-critical of 
their tendency to talk only to themselves. Fritz has been a model 
exception to this generalization. Hence, his influence on forestry develop 
ment in California has been profound. His work with redwood forest 
landowners led to many constructive improvements in the management of large 
redwood landhol dings. As a member of the California Forestry Study 
Committee, he influenced strongly and constructively the landmark forestry 
legislation adopted by the state at the end of World War II. And in later 
years he was among the first voices to point to needed revision and 
strengthening of several features of the state s forestry policies. 

Fritz s strong and independent voice lent balance to discussion of 
many forestry issues. Many students learned from him the importance of 
considering all sides of controversial policies. His practical approach to 
forestry, reinforced by a lifetime of astute observation in the woods, has 
helped innumerable people to think of forestry as a practice rather than 
as a theory. His unbounded interest and enthusiasm for redwood have been 
transmitted to a host of his listeners both within and outside the 
forestry profession. 


Fritz s profound Influence on forestry in California and elsewhere has 
recently been recognized with the award to him of the Gifford Pinchot Medal, 
This may have surprised Fritz, whose evenhanded criticism has at times 
fallen even on the "Father of the Profession," Gifford Pinchot. But to 
those who have seen Fritz s own contributions at close range, the award 
was fitting recognition to an outstanding figure in the profession. 

Henry S. Vaux 
Professor of Forestry 

4 July 1972 

217 Mulford Hall 

University of California, Berkeley 



In the developing history of forestry in America certain men and women 
emerge as major figures in the arena of conservation and forest policy. 
Emanuel Fritz of Berkeley, California, is one of these. Professor Fritz 
has long been a familiar figure in forestry affairs. Widely known as 
Mr. Redwood, he wears this appellation with considerable discomfort. 
"It is a questionable moniker to hang on anyone," he scoffs. "Whenever 
I hear it, it makes me feel as if I am being identified as some kind of 
character and without realization that my life as been spent in work on 
many species besides Sequo i a semperv i rens . " 

But to a considerable company of foresters who have studied under the 
strong-minded professor of lumbering and forest products at the world- 
renowned School of Forestry and Conservation on the University of 
California s Berkeley campus, Fritz is Mr. Redwood, and their number is 
considerably bolstered by a large contingent of laymen whose concern for 
the forests of America has brought them into frequent touch with the 
feisty professor in public meetings or through his extensive writings. 

Emanuel Fritz was born October 29, 1886, in Baltimore, Maryland, to 
German immigrant parents, John George* Fritz and Rosa Barbara Trautwein 
Fritz. The family enjoyed the fruits of a prosperous new business and 
gave major consideration to the education of Its offspring. Young 
Emanuel grew up speaking German, learning English from his friends in the 
streets of Baltimore. He was sent to school at the Polytechnic Institute 
of Baltimore along with his younger brother, Theodore. Another younger 
brother, Gustave, attended the City College. Both brothers are deceased. 

The Fritz family was devoutly religious in the evangelical tradition 
of the Lutheran faith. Daily Bible reading was part of family life. 
Young Emanuel s early interest in nature derived, perhaps, from his 
father s active attention to birds, animals, and plants. When city 
neighbors objected to a swarm of bees brought home in a gunnysack from the 
country, the elder Fritz packed up his family and moved to a suburb. 

After graduation from the Polytechnic Institute, Emanuel went to 
Cornell University following a major interest in engineering. Fritz took 
a generous variety of nonengineering courses through his years at 
Cornell, economics, corporate finance, contracts, and music. He sang 
regularly in the Cornell Chapel Choir, and, as he likes to recall, 
"received credit for it." In retrospect he now regrets not having 
pursued a degree in the arts as well as the mechanical engineering degree 
that he earned. Athletic skill was demonstrated by rowing stroke on the 
Engineering College crew. In intermural competition he came to know Fritz 
Fernow, stroke of the Arts Col lege crew. Fernow was the youngest son^ of 
the first professional forester in America, Bernhard Eduard Fernow. 

Fritz turned to forestry some years after teaching a stint at his old 
alma mater, Baltimore Polytechnic Institute. He went to Yale University s 
highly-touted School of Forestry and in 1914 was awarded the master s 

V I I I 

degree in Forestry. Franklin Hough s Trees of North America sparked an 
interest in wood technology that led him into a life-long study of uses 
of the redwoods and other western species. 

In 1914 he resumed a summer job he had previously landed as a student 
at Yale, working for the New Hampshire State Department of Forestry. The 
following year he joined the growing ranks of the United States Forest 
Service. This Involved him from 1915 to 1917, first, in fire suppression 
and prevention work and, secondly, in si I vicultural research. His exper 
ience with the Service ended with America s entry into World War I. 

Immediately after the war, Fritz moved into the ranks of academic 
forestry. From 1919 to 1954 he rose from Assistant Professor to full 
Professor in forestry at the University of California. During these 
years he taught wood technology and timber utilization. He emphasized 
with his students that forestry must be brought out into the woods. 

In line with this philosophy, from 1934 on, he served as consultant 
forester to the lumber industry, particularly in pine and redwood. Among 
his numerous positions and honors can be listed that of wood technologist 
for the California Pine Association and the West Coast Lumbermen s 
Association; forestry advisor and V ice-President of the Foundation of 
American Resource Management; Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Forestry; 
and Founder and Secretary of the Redwood Region Logging Conference. 

Fritz was not one to ignore the role of federal and state government. 
Though advocating minimum public regulation of private forestry, he 
served, from 1938 to 1940, as consultant to the United States Department 
of the Interior and, from 1943 to 1945, as forestry consultant to the 
California Legislative Interim Committee. 

His work thrust him into contact with a bustling lumber industry 
which was already showing signs of the sickness that was to provoke the 
critical analyses of William B. Greeley, David T. Mason, and, later, 
Wilson Compton. Fritz felt a sympathy for loggers and lumbermen and 
defended them against critics both within his profession and in the 
muckraker press. It was this attitude, maintained throughout a long 
career, which has brought upon his head the frequent accusation that he 
is a stalking-horse of industrial interests. The bitter battle over 
management of the nation s forest resources in this century, continuing 
with heightened fury today, creates fertile ground for such accusations. 
Historians of the future will appraise Fritz s role from the careful 
examination of his personal papers, preserved in the University of 
California s Bancroft Library, as well as his voluminous published 
record of American forestry. 

That Fritz took up the cudgels frequently in the great battles of 
recent forest history, often opposing one of his leading mentors at Yale, 
H.H. Chapman, is a part of this work which will draw special attention 
from scholars. Whatever future analyses of Fritz may produce, it is 

*ln the course of these interviews with Emanuel Fritz the Forest 
History Society also obtained funding from the California Redwood Associa 
tion for the inventorying and indexing of the Fritz papers in The Bancroft 
Library. This was done by Marion Stuart of the Forestry Library, University 
of California, Berkeley. 


without doubt that he made a clear and unequivocal impact upon the record 
of American forestry. 

The Fritz interviews were made over a period of nine years. I 
made the f 1 rst, interview .in San Francisco. on January 2, 1958. This 

was followed by another Interview of mine made in Berkeley on November 5, 
1958. Mrs. Fry conducted separate interviews on November 12, 1965, and 
August 28, 1967, in Berkeley. Working from rough drafts of these initial 
interviews, Mrs. Fry and I made further interviews with Professor Fritz 
in Berkeley on February 27, 1967, and on March I, 2, 3, and 4, 1967. The 
volume is composed of major portions of all the various interviews. 

This volume of oral history interviews with Professor Fritz is one 
of a series of works focusing upon Western American forest history and 
made possible by grants from the Louis W. and Maud Hill Family Foundation 
and the Weyerhaeuser Family Foundation. The Hill and Weyerhaeuser grants 
were made to the Forest History Society during the 1960s to permit the 
making of selected in-depth interviews with westerners who had been 
either major participants in or keen observers of developing patterns of 
western forest land use. 

A considerable list of desirable interviews was compiled with the 
aid and assistance of colleagues in the major western universities and 
colleges with which the Forest History Society has enjoyed a symbiotic 
relationship for nearly two decades. Interviews were planned with a final 
high-priority list. Preparatory research for the interviews included 
searching published sources as well as examining available documentary 
materials relating to the men and women to be interviewed. To conserve 
funds, interviews were planned to take advantage of the attendance of 
respondents at regional or national meetings held on the West Coast.* 
Experts in the oral history method in western universities were employed 
to assist in the program, particularly from the Regional Oral History 
Office of the Bancroft Library at the University of California in Berkeley.** 
Professor William H. Hutchinson of the History Department at Chico State 
University was also recruited to make interviews which explored the folk 
lore of the western woodlands.*** 

*George L. Drake, tape-recorded interview in 1967, and David T. Mason, 
tape-recorded interview in 1965, 1966 and 1967, by Elwood R. Maunder, 
Forest History Society, Santa Cruz, California. In process. 

**Among these interviews were, C. Raymond Clar, tape-recorded interview 
in 1966 by Amelia R. Fry, in process; Leo A. Isaac, "Douglas Fir Research 
in the Pacific Northwest, 1920-1956," typed transcript of tape-recorded 
interview by Amelia R. Fry, 1967; Woodbridge Metcalf, "Extension Forester, 
1926-1956," typed transcript of tape-recorded interview by Evelyn Bonnie 
Fairburn, 1969, University of Ca I iforni a Bancroft Library Regional Oral 
History Office, Berkeley. 

: ***W.B. Laughead, typed transcript of tape-recorded interview by William 
H. Hutchinson, Forest History Society, Santa Cruz, California. 1957. 

As the principal investigator I was privileged to make approximately 
half of the interviews. Amelia Roberts Fry of the Regional Oral History 
Office, Berkeley, is co-author of this work and the author of other 
interviews In this series. Wi I la K. Baum, Director of the Regional Oral 
History Office of Berkeley, assisted In directing the processing of 

Interviews. The preparatory research on the large Fritz connection, which 
1s a comprehensive documentary resource for all areas of his professional 
life, was done by Amelia Fry; my Yale University colleagues Joseph A. Miller, 
Judith C. Rudnicki, and Margaret G. -Davidson did much of the research from 
related deposits in the Forest History Society and the Yale Historical Manu 
scripts Collection. Susan R. Schrepfer and Barbara D. Holman did the final 
editing of the manuscript, created its index, and saw the volume through 
the last steps of publication. 

Acknowledgment of advice of many others who aided in the arrangements 
for interviews would require several pages to record here. Of particular 
noteworthy assistance were Carwin Wool ley, Executive Vice-President of the 
Pacific Logging Congress; Bernard L. Orel I and Irving Luiten of the 
Weyerhaeuser Company; Dave James of Simpson Timber Company; Foresters 
Thornton T. Munger, David T. Mason, Henry J. Vaux, Henry E. Clepper, 
Frank H. Kaufert, George A. Garratt, and Paul M. Dunn. Hardin C. Glascock 
of the Western Forestry and Conservation Association, now Executive Vice- 
President of the Society of American Foresters, was a most helpful 
consultant and critic. 

Special appreciation is expressed for the encouragement and patience 
of the sponsors, in particular A. A. Heckman and John D. Taylor of the Hill 
Family Foundation, Frank B. Rarig and Frederick K. Weyerhaeuser of the 
Weyerhaeuser Family Foundation, and Philip Farnsworth and Kramer Adams of 
the California Redwood Association. 

Oral history is a new and demanding discipline. The great volume of 
work involved in designing, planning, and carrying out the processing of 
all the many interviews was done without intrusion of any kind upon the 
team of scholars who labored so long and hard upon it. Many of the men and 
women who were interviewed have since died. That their vivid memories of 
the history of western forestry and conservation have been preserved in the 
interviews of this series is a tribute to all who have been associated 
with the project. 

It is our hope that more interviews in this series may be published 
and that excerpts from other unpublished interviews can be submitted as 
articles to scholarly and popular journals. Funds are now being sought 
fror the National Endowment for the Humanities and other sources cf 
philanthropy to assist us toward these goals. A significant number of 
articles from oral interviews have already been published in Forest History 
and American Forests. 

The potential of oral history has only begun to be realized. Much 
progress has been made since Professor A I Ian Nevins began to develop the 
method at Columbia University in 1950. It is a matter of pride to the 
Forest History Society that its first exploration of the method was made 
only two years later, the result of conversations I had with Professor 


Nevins. Today the ranks of oral historians are growing at a rate that 
amazes even those optimistic advocates who championed the method in the 
face of considerable criticism during the early fifties. The Oral 
History Association now stands on sturdy feet, counts numerous members 
on its rolls, and gains prestige with the counting number of fine books 
and articles published. The Forest History Society is proud to add this 
volume to the library of American oral history. 

Copies of this manuscript, either in manuscript or microfiche form, 
can be purchased from the Forest History Society. 

Elwood R. Maunder, Interviewer 
Executive Director 
Forest History Society 

30 November 1972 
Forest History Society 
733 River Street 
Santa Cruz, California 

xi i 

LI wood l\. Mjuridor was cjrodudtotJ from I ho llnl ver^i ly of Minno-joKi 
in 1939 wi rh a B.A. in journalism. He was a reporter and editor of Hie 
Minnesota Dai I y and an officer of his class. From 1939 to December, 1941, 
he was a reporter and feature writer for the Minneapolis Ti mes-Tri bune and 
the Minneapolis Star-Journa I . He enlisted in the U.S. Coast Guard 
December 21, 1941, and served as a combat correspondent in both the 
European and Mediterranean theaters of war on landing craft for infantry 
and combat transports. He was editor of the Ninth Naval District s 
magazine, Sound! nqs, at the conclusion of the war. He was graduated from 
Washington University at St. Louis in 1947 with an M. A. in history. He 
attended the London School of Economics and Political Science for one 
year and worked as a freelance foreign correspondent and British Gallup 
Pollster. He was a member of the staff of the U.S. Department of State 
during the Meeting of Foreign Ministers in London in 1947 and 1948. 
Returning to the United States he was named director of Public Relations 
for the Board of Missions of the Methodist Church, later director of 
public relations for the Ohio area of the Methodist Church. In 1952 he 
was appointed executive director of the Forest History Society. He is 
the author of many articles, has produced more than one hundred oral 
history interviews, and edited with Margaret G. Davidson A Hi story of 
the Forest Products Industries: Proceedings of the First National 
Col loqu i urn, sponsored by the Forest History Society and the Business 
History Group of the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. 
He is the publisher and long-time editor of Forest History, quarterly 
journal of the Forest History Society. He is an Honorary Member of the 
Society of American Foresters and a Fellow of the Forest History Society. 


Amelia R. Fry was graduated from the University of Oklahoma In 
1947 with a B.A. in psychology. She wrote for the campus magazine. She 
received her Master of Arts in educational psychology from the University 
of Illinois in 1952, with heavy minors in English for both degrees. She 
taught freshman English at the University of Illinois from 1947 to 1948 
and at Hiram College in Ohio from 1954 to 1955. Mrs. Fry also taught 
English as a foreign language in Chicago from 1950 to 1953. She writes 
feature articles for various newspapers and was reporter for a suburban 
daily from 1966 to 1967 and writes professional articles for journals and 
historical magazines. She joined the staff of Regional Oral History Office, 
University of California, Berkeley, in 1959, first specializing in the 
field of conservation and forest history, then public administration and 
politics. She is currently director of the Earl Warren Oral History 
Project at the university and secretary of the Oral History Association. 

This photograph was taken on the occasion of the 
presentation of the Emanuel Fritz papers to the 
Bancroft Library. From left to right, Elwood R. 
Maunder, Donald Coney, former University of 
California, Berkeley, Librarian, and Professor 

Thursday, December 15, 1988 


UC Forestry Expert 
Emmanuel Fritz 

Emmanuel Fritz, a forestry ex 
pert nicknamed "Mr. Redwood" 
and the oldest faculty member at 
the University of California at 
Berkeley, died last Thursday in his 
Berkeley home at the age of 102. 

Mr. Fritz was involved in nearly 
every aspect of the redwood indus 
try and was considered a forestry 
and conservation authority for 70 

He advised elected and appoint 
ed officials on the need to balance 
demands for lumber in a rapidly 
growing state with the need to pre 
serve old-growth groves, replant 
logged areas and set aside areas for 

"He encouraged reforestation 
and cooperation between the log 
ging industry and conservation 
groups," said John DeWitt, execu 
tive director of the Save the Red 
woods League, of which Mr. Fritz 
was a longtime member. 

Mr. Fritz wrote a pamphlet in 
1932 entitled "The Story Told by the 
Fallen Redwood" which is still dis 
tributed by the Save The Redwoods 
League to schools across the coun 
try. DeWitt said. 

Millions of people who do not 
recognize Mr. Fritz s name probably 
remember reading the book at 
some point during their childhood, 
DeWitt said. The book describes 1 
how tree rings, fire scars and other 
markings can provide a detailed 
chronology of an ancient redwood s 

When Mr. Fritz turned 102, he 
earned the distinction of becoming 
the oldest faculty member in UC 
Berkeley history. Cal s previously 
oldest professor, chemist Joel Hiide- 
brand, was 101 when he died in 1963. 

Mr. Fritz helped create Califor 
nia s State Forest program and ad- 

vised Governor Earl Warren on for 
est and logging matters. And he was 
the founder of the Redwood Region 

^Logging Conference, which honor 
ed him on its 50th anniversary earli 
er this year for his prominence and 
his influence on forestry practices. 

His personal papers are at UC 
Berkeley s Bancroft Library, noted 
for its collection documenting the 
"history of the Western United 

Mr. Fritz was a member of the 
Commonwealth Club and of the Bo 
hemian Club. At the Bohemian Club 
he established a museum to depict 
the life, history and ecology of the 
trees on the club grounds along the 
Russian River. 

Mr. Fritz was born in Baltimore 
] on Oct. 29, 1886. He received a bach 
elor s degree fromjCorneU in 1908 
" and a master s from Yale in 1914. 

He was a forester for the New 
npshire State Forestry Depart- 
ment before moving West to work 
for the VS. Forest Service and serv 
ing as an Air Service captain in 
! World War I. 

Mr. Fritz joined UC Berkeley s 
Division of Forestry in 1919 and re 
tired in 1954, retaining the title pro- 
f essor emeritus. 

fc. He is survived by two daugh- 
; ters, Barbara Fritz of Berkeley and 
. Roberta Fair of Eugene, Ore. At his 
request, no services were planned. 

Donations ire preferred to 
Save the Redwoods League, Alta 
.Bates Hospice, S232 Claremont Ave- 
, nue, Oakland, 94618 or to the Soci- 
Ly of American Foresters building 
Jund, 5400 Grosvenor Lane, Bethes- 
JOa,Md., 20814-2188. 


The Fritz Fami ly in Baltimore 

Maunder: Emanuel, can you start out by telling us something about your 

family origins and where you were born and something perhaps of 
your early childhood? 

Fritz: I was born in Baltimore, Maryland, October 29, 1886. My father 
was born in Ebersberg, Wurttemberg, on February 14, 1855. My 
mother was born in Stuttgart, Wurttemberg, on February 2, 1856. 
Father was nearly eighty-three when he passed away and mother was 
just past eighty-two. 

Father was a tailor, learning the trade in Switzerland to which he 
went before he was twenty. He came to the United States in about 
1880. Mother came to the United States about the same time and they 
were married in Baltimore on April 15, 1884. 

When they came to this country, they went to night school at once 
to learn the language, and in my father s case, he also learned 
bookkeeping so that he could set up his own business. While he 
finished his apprenticeship In Switzerland, where he spent most of 
his youth although born in Germany, he decided that the thing to 
do in the United States was to have his own business. He set up 
one shortly after he was married and the business prospered. The 
only tough times we knew as boys were those of the 1892-1893 period 
in the very severe depression of those years. My parents often 
spoke of those days, but they pulled themselves out of the slump 
without help, as did the rest of the country. 

Maunder: Your father s name was what? 

Fritz: John George Fritz. And my mother s maiden name was Rosa Barbara 

Trautwein. Her parents and ancestors were all soldiers. My father s 
were soldiers and farmers. My father was exempted from military 
service because of a bad leg. 

Maunder: What brought him to this country? Was it the economic opportunity? 

Fritz: Well, in those days of course many young men in Europe felt that the 
streets of the United States were paved with gold, and they thought 
they d come over here and pick up some of it. My father often told 
me that in this country one is compensated in accordance with how 
hard he works and what he knows, while in Europe, one s station in 
life, as to birth, pretty much determined how far you could get. 

Maunder: When did he come to this country? 

Aunt Carrie Trautwein Muth with Emanuel Fritz, ca. 1890 







It must have been about 1880. I was born in 1886, October 29th. 
Mother and father, as I said, met in this country and they were 
both nearly thirty when they married. 

Was there any particular reason for their settling in Baltimore? 

No, unless it was the church. My father was a very devout church 
man. He joined the church while he was a young man in Switzerland. 
He was somewhat of an orator at least he liked to speak before 
groups and I have an idea the church gave him an opportunity to 
express himself. 

This was one of the evangelical churches? 
That s right, a Lutheran offshoot. 
Which one? 

It was called merely the Evangelical Church. That s my recollec 
tion. 1 should remember it more clearly but frankly we boys (three 
of us in the fami ly and I was the oldest) had to go to church and 
Sunday school so much in the course of a week that we, you might 
say, got a little too much of it. There was a lot of dogma and 
fear of the hereafter. But my father insisted on it and as long 
as he was the boss, we went. 

Has that persisted through your life? 
churchman as a result of this? 

Have you not been an active 

I really did enjoy going to church while in college, both at Cornell 
and at Yale. Attendance was purely voluntary. They had invited 
preachers, a different one nearly every Sunday, and they were really 
great men and good speakers. They spoke with good sense and I en 
joyed attending those sermons, but since then I haven t been very 
active in any church. As youngsters, we would occasionally go to 
a synagogue or a Catholic church to see what it was like. 

Was this a German community that you lived in as a boy in Baltimore? 

In part. It was changing. Baltimore had a large number of Germans 
and Irish. Italians, largely from Naples and Sicily, were beginning 
to arrive in large numbers. 

The Germans had Turnvereins (gymnasium clubs). I belonged to one. 
And they had a lot of societies and singing groups (Saenger verein). 
They would go during the summer to their Schuetzenpark for their 
Schuetzenfest, as they called it. "Schuetz," of course, would be 
a guard. 

I don t know what the origin of those organizations was and why 
they were set up but as a result of the First World War and the 
strong feeling against the Germans, all those organizations came 
to a quick end. It was rather unfortunate because they were very 





good social organizations and very loyal to America. The Germans 
we came In contact with were mostly from south Germany, kind, fun- 
loving, religious and not militaristic as were the Prussians. They 
became citizens as soon as they could and prized their new status. 

Did you grow up speaking both t ruiIKh ,in<1 Herman? 

I spoke German until I was eight, and when I was about eight, 1 
picked up English on the street and to some extent in school. 

I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about your family life 
and your growing up as a young man in the eastern United States. 
What do you recall most about your boyhood? 

Well, it was a very happy boyhood. Our parents took a great deal 

of interest in us and gave us every opportunity. Of course, trans 

portation in those days wasn t what it is today. We had to ride 

streetcars or we walked or rode our bicycles. 

Even though we lived right in the city I had to walk to school as 
far as Abraham Lincoln was reported to have walked and mine was 
always on hard city streets but no mud. The Polytechnic Institute 
was about two miles from home but we enjoyed walking. When 1 say 
"we," I mean my younger brother Theodore and I. There were a lot 
of Interesting windows en route, especially Schwartz s Toy Store, 
which was always fascinating. 

Where did your middle brother gc to school? 

He went to the Polytechnic as I did, but did not finish. Theodore 
thought it was very foolish to stay in school so long when you 
could go out and make money right away, so he quit the Polytechnic 
early and entered business college. He was one of the first to 
operate what is today a "stenotype" machine. 

As soon as he graduated from this business college I think it was 
Strayer s he got excellent jobs and he worked himself up very 
rapidly in business. His principal employer at the time, as I 
recall, was Armour and Company. Later he had a large steel dis 
tributing business, everything from chain link fencing to tool 

Maunder: But your younger brother went along with you through the Polytechnic? 

Fritz: That was Theodore. The other brother, Gustave, was four years 

younger and went to the City College. Baltimore in those days had 
no high schools for boys under that name. It had only the Baltimore 
Polytechnic Institute and they had the Baltimore City College, both 
for boys only. 

My youngest brother Gus had decided to become a doctor so that meant 
that he would go to the City College where he would be prepared to 
enter either Hopkins or the University of Maryland. He chose the 

Fritz: University of Maryland and developed an excellent medical practice. 
Both brothers are deceased, Gus at fifty, Ted at sixty-eight. Both 
were hard workers. 

Maunder: Your parents were in a position to give you all the very best of 
education as you were growing up? 

Fritz: Yes, they insisted upon it. They were not always in comfortable 

circumstances but they generally had enough. They were very frugal 
and they made a dollar go a long way. They taught us the same 
principle. They encouraged us to do some work on the outside with 
the result that when 1 went to college 1 financed my first two 
years myself and made nearly enough money in the summertime and 
at odd times to help me through the third year, although my father 
and mother contributed a considerable share. 

They were very independent people, especially my mother. They 
felt that one appreciated more what he had to work for. Mother 
was very practical. Father, on the other hand, was pretty much 
of an ideal ist. 

My father was a diligent student of the Bible and he read very 
widely on biological subjects, medical and zoological. Living 
in the city, we had little opportunity to have any biological 
interests except that father raised Newfoundland dogs and fancy 
pigeons for show purposes and others for racing. Since the birds 
didn t need the floor of the cage, I was permitted to have some 
guinea pigs and a squirrel, but that was the extent of that. How 
ever, we bicycled often to the country and particularly to the fine 
Druid Hill Park to see something green. 

Even though the back yard was small, as in all those city houses, 
we built some boxes on the porch in which we had flowers and vines. 

My father s interest in birds and animals and plants, which he 
couldn t really develop in the city, led him finally to quit the 
city and move to the country. He had been on a Sunday walk in the 
country with my mother, beyond the end of the car line. He found 
a swarm of bees and he told mother that swarm was going to belong 
to him. So he went to a nearby farm house for a gunny sack, slipped 
the sack over the swarm and took it home. Although it meant being 
absent from church that Sunday night, he stayed home and made him 
self a beehive out of, I believe, a cracker box, and the next morn 
ing we were amateur apiarists. 

Those bees were very active and had to forage pretty far and wide 
in the city to get what they needed. Some of the neighbors com 
plained, so my father said, "If the neighbors don t like my bees, 
I m going to move where nobody can be bothered by them." So he 
bought himself a little place of about seven acres about a mile 
from the end of the Belair Road car line at a place called Kenwood 
Park. There was a newly completed house on the property which was 
up for sale because the owner had lost his wife. It was a large 

Fritz: house, very well built, and the grounds gave father a chance to 
have not only bees and pigeons but chickens and everything else. 
As a result of that Interest, a few years later 1 built him an 
aviary about twenty by twenty, in which he raised pheasants of 
five or six different kinds. 

The chicken house, as I remember it, was pretty much like a modern 
four-room house. On the second floor he had pigeons and on the 
first floor there were chickensfancy chickens, by the way. Mother, 
being rather practical, couldn t see the sense being generally badly 
bent financiallyof raising show birds, so she insisted on birds 
that would lay eggs and cause no tears if they were laid on a block 
and decapitated. So she had her own flock of Plymouth Rocks and 
Leghorns for eggs and the big Orpingtons for meat, so we were on a 
chicken diet at least once a week and we had more eggs than we 
knew what to do with. 

An interesting sidelight on that was this: they moved to the 
country while 1 was a junior at Cornell but I didn t spend the 
following summer with them. That summer I spent in Steelton, 
Pennsylvania, working for the Pennsylvania Steel Company. 

After college graduation, I became a teacher at the Baltimore Poly 
technic Institute. (This is jumping ahead a little, on this chicken 
business.) Our chickens were doing so well laying eggs that we 
thought it deserved some attention as a business. It happened 
that in the summer of 1910, I think it was, 1 worked as a drafts 
man for the Cambria Steel Company in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Two 
other draftsmen also liked the outdoors so we three used to take 
walks Saturday afternoons and all day Sundays in the woods and 
talked over our future as young fellows will. 

I noticed that one of them could identify grasses. He apparently 
was a farm-bred boy and could distinguish one grass from another 
merely by the fruit. I thought that was very interesting. The 
other one knew some trees while 1 didn t know any of those things. 
We decided it would be interesting to have a little hobby, or a 
little sideline, so two of us enrol led in Pennsylvania State Col 
lege extension courses, correspondence courses in fact. 

I recall my first course was the propagation of plants in which we 
learned how plants live and grow and how they are propagated. That 
opened an entirely new world to me and it came to be very fascinat 
ing. I couldn t wait for the next exercise to come in the ma i I . 
Then I took courses in poultry husbandry and in fertilizers and 
so on, but the poultry husbandry course was the one I look back 
upon with real amusement. 

The courses told us that chickens will lay well if treated well, 
what chickens needed in the way of treatment was this and that. 
So when 1 got back to Maryland for the winter term of teaching I 
decided to put some of these principles into operation. First of 
all, I learned that our chicken house, which was a pretty fancy 

Fritz: affair, faced the wrong way, according to the book. It should have 
faced south whereas it faced west to the residence. 1 turned the 
house ninety degrees with the help of some of my husky cousins one 
Easter Monday. I had everything ready: the new foundation had 
been poured earlier and the hor^e had been raised up on skids, 
properly greased. So when the youngsters were asked to heave and 
they did heave, the house spun right around ninety degrees. Then 
it was easy to lower it on the new foundation blocks. That was 
possibly my first use of my engineering training by actually build 
ing something. 

Well, we put in all the appurtenances required by the book and as 
a result the chickens laid at a great rate, and we had eggs coming 
out of our ears we didn t know what to do with them. It happened 
that one of our neighbors, who were all farmers, thought it rather 
amusing for city people to come to the country and even attempt 
to run a little kitchen garden and to have some chickens, but he 
asked all kinds of questions as to why our chickens laid eggs and 
his did not. So we told him that as long as he hadn t eggs to 
supply his trade, we d sell him our excess. 

My brother Theodore and I got excited over that and we thought that 
if we could raise eggs by that simple procedure it ought to be a 
good business to get into. Being a businessman working for Armour 
and Company, he went to the hotels in Baltimore and at each one 
was told that if he could guarantee a certain number of dozen eggs 
every morning he could have all of their business. 

He came home all steamed up and soon we had it all planned out as 
to where the new chicken houses were to be, and even had a delivery 
truck all picked out. It would have been one of the first motor 
trucks in that locality. Things were going very well and we were 
on the verge of going into the chicken business when Armour and 
Company transferred him to Cuba. 

That settled that venture, and I m very glad it did because a man 
who raises chickens is really a slave to them. He has to be there 
morning and night. In fact, it was a good thing because I was 
weakening on engineering anyway. 

The experience of being out in the country and having so much free 
time all of Saturday and Sunday and all the vacation days were 
spent out there was a real education. Father had some excellent 
men working for him; one was an avid reader of every document that 
was ever published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture up to 
that time. It was from him that I learned the difference between 
hay and straw and what humus is, and so on. He was a very well- 
read man although he had no formal education. I learned later 
that he worked for us in the off-season only, because his major 
interest was following the races; and he was with us only waiting 
for the Piml ico race track season to open. I learned a great deal 
from him and also from the other men and I got interested in grow 
ing things. 

Fritz: My father, of course, was always playing with his bees and birds 
and animals. We had to have a horse to drive us to the streetcar 
line a mile away, and we thought we ought to have a cow to have 
fresh milk, although it probably would have been a great deal 
cheaper to buy It from the locr i farmers. He also experimented 
with grafting and I used to watch him, and as the thing went along, 
after a few years I got to feeling that engineering was not nearly 
as exciting as the biological fields like growing things and watch 
ing bees at work and so on. Incidentally, father had an "observation 
hive" from which one could take off a cover and see what went on in 
side. I recommend it to others. It s an eye-opener. 

As a result of this experience in the country, 
engineering eventually and study forestry. I l 
little separate story of that because that goes 
farther. Do you have a question at this point? 

decided to quit 
have to make a 
back a I i ttle 

Baltimore Polytechnic 




Can you tel I us of the progress 
entered forestry school? 

of your education up unti I you 

The early years of education I spent in a Lutheran parochial school 
where the language was practically all German for the first two 
years; and then shortly after that I went to the F. Knapp s Institute 
Baltimore which was also a private school but run by an American- 


born man of German descent, 

father before the Civil War 

a school that had been 
in the same buildings. 

started by his 

I recall there was quite a wing at the back of the school in which 
the slaves had been kept before the war. This wing had the same 
number of floors on the same levels as the floors in the main build 
ing and each floor had its own slave. It was a very thorough school. 
They taught pretty much with the stick. The teachers were first- 
class people, men and women. They knew how to teach and they made 
us feel that we wanted to learn. 

Incidentally, this was the same school that H. L. Mencken attended. 
Later on, I attended another school which was also Mencken s school. 

nstitute. That school, by the way. 

the Baltimore Polytechnic 

in his 

set up 

would work out. Baltimore was always, as I remember it 

mental area for schooling, possibly brought about by the presence 

of Johns Hopkins University in the same city. 


time known as the Baltimore Manual Training School. It was 
as an experimental school to see how vocational training 

an experi- 

You got a stern type of discipline and education in this school? 

There was discipline from morning until you were released in the 
afternoon. There was no monkey business about giving one extra 
hours to study. We were expected to study at home. There was no 

Fritz: choice of courses; all were prescribed, and if your grade average 
wasn t up to a certain point you were canned. This had the pre 
dictable results. 

From Knapp s Institute I went to the Polytechnic, entering the 
sixth grade and staying seven years. "Poly" was being elevated 
from a purely vocational school with three lower grades, sixth, 
seventh and eighth, and three high school grades. The grammar 
school grades were to be phased out and the three high school 
years were to be raised to four. It developed into a very highly 
rated school, really a secondary engineering school from which 
its graduates could enter Lehigh or Cornell as sophomores. Some 
of the engineering textbooks were the same used at the U. S. Naval 
Academy. There were no biological courses whatever. Dr. J. B. 
Conant, who made a study of secondary schools in the I940 s, con 
sidered It a top school. 

I was graduated twice, first at the end of three years and then 
again at the end of four years in 1905. The school was always 
headed by a retired naval officer who insisted on good discipline. 
The curriculum was all prescribed; there was no choice. 

The school was really remarkable and I m happy to say that the 
man who followed the last naval officer was a close friend of mine 
and a near classmate. He retires, I believe, this month, in Janu 
ary of 1958. He s a Cornell graduate, as I am, and he maintained 
the same policy that was carried on by Lieutenant William R. King, 
who was principal for about twenty years. 

Incidentally, going to a school like that makes one think back as 
to who had the greatest influence on him in later life, and It s 
pretty hard to say which one of the teachers had the greatest in 
fluence on me. There were all men no women teachers and no girls 
in the school. It was quite different than it would have been in 
an ordinary high school. All those men were primarily teachers. 
They loved teaching; they loved being among the boys; they loved 
talking with the boys in off hours; and they insisted on fairness, 
scholarship and good behavior. The only thing that they were weak 
on, as I think back, was penmanship. They never made us learn to 
write a really legible hand as the kids were taught in those days 
in the parochial schools. 1 wasn t in the parochial school long 
enough to really learn to write a good hand. 

Maunder: By parochial school, what do you mean? Is this one that was carried 
on by your father s church? 

Fritz: It wasn t my father s church; it was a Lutheran church in our neigh 
borhood. Our own church did not have a school. I call it a paro 
chial school, although it was Lutheran. Generally the parochial 
schools are looked upon as Catholic schools but that is not neces- 
sari ly true. 

Fritz: The principal of the Polytechnic was a most understanding man. He 
was not only firm but he was also fair and he knew his stuff. He 
had an idea that the time for a boy to learn was when he was very 
young, so, this being a polytechnic institute, he was naturally 
charged with the duty of turning OUT men who would go into the en 
gineering or manufacturing fields. 

The school was strong on mechanical and electrical subjects, of 
course, but at the expense of such subjects or fields as history, 
literature and English. What history and English and literature 
we had was excellent, but I wish there had been a great deal more. 
The men we had for teachers were wonderful and I can sti I I remem 
ber to this day much of the poetry that we had to learn by heart. 
In fact, these men imbued us in the short time that we were with 
them with an interest in English and literature and history, and 
in my own case it has never left me. 

The school was possibly a little more advanced than it should have 
been for boys of our age. We had to take mathematics every day 
the entire time we were in the school for me, it was seven years. 
We started out with arithmetic and we wound up with ten units of 
calculus, both integral and differential, after ten units of ana 
lytical geometry. In both cases, it was twice as much as was 
required to enter Cornell University s engineering department. 

I recall the instructor in calculus, a man more than six feet high, 
well built, a former oarsman, but not a college graduate. His name 
was Uhrbrock. (I think only one teacher in that school at that 
time was a college graduate.) He got us so excited about calculus 
that most of us ended the course with an average of more than 
ninety percent, and I recall in my case, prior to the examination, 
I worked out each problem in the book just for the fun of it, not 
necessarily for the examination. That helped a great deal when we 
went to college. Some of the boys went to Lehigh and once in a 
while one went to M.I.T. Having a good grounding in mathematics, 
our courses at Cornel I were much easier. 

I might say also that the steam engineering we got at the Poly 
technic Institute and the course in mechanics were in many respects 
superior to that which we got at Cornell. Cornell permitted us to 
enter as sophomores but refused to give us credit for the mechanics 
course because they thought that was so important they wanted to 
be sure we got mechanics the way they wanted it taught. But as a 
result of having to take mechanics all over again, five units a 
week for an entire year, every boy who came from our Polytechnic 
to enter Cornell finished the mechanics course with a grade of 
ninety percent or more. I think I got ninety-six or ninety-seven, 
and one of my classmates got ninety-eight or ninety-nine. We were 
always the top in the class, not because we were any better but be 
cause we were merely repeating the course. 

That was one of the most interesting courses I ever took. The book 


Fritz: was written by Irving P. Church. I remember him very well. He 

was a typical teacher type and all tied up with his mechanics. If 
he were alive today, he would probably be working out some of the 
mechanics involved in space vehicles. He was a very short man; he 
could write with both hands. In one hand he would have a piece of 
white chalk and in the other a piece of colored chalk. He d draw 
his diagrams and present the problem and then show how it would be 
worked out. By the time he got through, his black swallow-tailed 
coat was pretty well covered with chalk dust. He was a great 

The steam engineering we didn t have to take until we were juniors 
at Cornell, and that course was so simple, and merely a lecture 
course, that I would take along my other courses for study because, 
although the man giving the lectures the dean of the College of 
Engineering, "Uncle Pete," as we called him, Professor A. W. Smith 
knew his stuff, but we Polytechnic graduates were way ahead of him. 

The Polytechnic principals had all come from Annapolis and were in 
the Navy s engineering department before their retirement. I must 
admit though that at the Polytechnic, my brother and I were team 
mates in some of the difficulties we got into. 

Maunder: You make it sound as if you were a real juvenile delinquent. 

Fritz: Oh no. Nothing like that. [Laughter] Not with the kind of parents 
I had. As I said earlier, the teachers we had were excellent, but 
we did have one or two that were rather weak and couldn t handle 
the classes, and of course the students took charge. Word would 
get to the principal once in a while that the classes were running 
away with the teachers and that the Fritz brothers were leaders. 

They were innocent pranks, but when you get into difficulty once, 
then you re accjsed of every other prank that is committed. For 
example, I was accused once of having stolen a skeleton from one 
of the laboratories, putting a rope around it and hanging it in 
the flies of the theater stage, and of being about to lower it on 
the stage during commencement of the class before mine, to excite 
the audience; but the janitor found the skeleton in time and cut it 
down. Well, I suppose they still think, if they re still living, 
that I swiped that skeleton. I knew nothing about it until after 
the ceremony. 

Maunder: That skeleton really doesn t belong in your closet, is that right? 

Fritz: Nope, not that one. 


Cornel 1 Un i versify 

M.iunder: You attended Cornell how many years, Fmanuel? 

Fritz: Three years. I could have gotten my mechanical engineering degree 
in two years by attending one summer session, but I preferred to 
stay a year longer because in those days there was a nation-wide 
feeling that engineers were not being educated, just like today 
we talk about the lacks of engineering education. Feeling that I 
could benefit by more liberal education, I took the extra time 
that I had available at Cornell to take courses in economics, cor 
poration finance, contracts, and so forth. I even took music. I 
sang in the Sage Chapel choir and received credit for it. I also 
enjoyed some of the sermons at the chapel . 

Maunder: Do you remember some of those men, who they were? 

Fritz: The man I think who had the most impact on me was old Dr. Lyman 

Abbott. He was the editor and publisher of the old Outlook maga 
zine. He had a very, very long beard and I understand that he had 
never shaved. He not only preached in the beautiful and inspiring 
Sage Chapel but he also held informal gatherings Sunday night which 
I enjoyed attending. He also preached in Woolsey Chapel at Yale, 
and I never missed qoinq to hear him. 

3 3 

Dr. Henry Van Dyke also appealed strongly to me. I believe E. E. 
Hale also preached there. He was a venerable man at the time. A 
rabbi preached once and made an excellent impression. These men 
all showed great learning and good philosophy. I don t recall 
that a Catholic priest ever appeared, and that was a loss. I sang 
in the choir at Cornell. It added much to the pleasure of attend- 
i ng chapel . 

I must add that my father retired from business rather early, got 
even more active in the church, and became a pinch-hitter for 
preachers (in the Methodist church this time) who were either ill 
or on vacation. Father enjoyed substituting for them and he could 
preach in English as well as in German one of the old-fashioned 
hell-fire and brimstone sermons. 

I had almost enough credits for an A.B. 
got the M.E., but engineers looked down 
it wasn t practical. As I look back on 

degree at the same time I 
on the A.B. degree because 
it now, I feel that I should 

have taken less engineering and more of the letters and science 
courses. An odd thing about that whole educational program was 
that I had not one single unit of any biological subject, and later 
on when I decided to enter forestry school, I was afraid I wouldn t 
be able to handle it because all my previous training had been in 
the physical sciences. Going later into forestry, a biological field 
with strange scientific terms and names but that s another story. 


Maunder: It s interesting that you should say you feel 





Would you 
training and 

in the fields of 
say that this is 

that you lacked 
the humanities. 

social science and 

a very important part of an engineer s 

I think an engineer should have a better general education because 
he deals not only with machines and bridges but also with people. 
For example, when a bridge is first proposed, you might go to an 
engineer and ask him if it s feasible. The engineer might say, 
after some computation, "Yes, it is feasible from an engineering 
standpoint, but is it feasible from an economic standpoint? Will 
the bridge be used enough to pay it off? Should beauty of design 
be considered?" 

So many engineers don t have an understanding of economics even 
to this day, or of dealing with people, so that they are looked 
upon as being merely slide rule operators and designers or opera 
tors of engineering plants. I found in my own case that the art 
of speaking English and writing It and conversing with others is 
possibly even more valuable or more important than knowing a lot 
of formulae. 

This seems now to be borne out in what top management in industry 
is doing in some of its recruitment of new leadership. They re 
quire not only people who are well trained in a specialized field, 
but they want people of rather broad education. 

Yes. I think that business in the past fifteen years has been so 
extraordinarily good that many men reached the top in industry, 
engineering, banking and business because they couldn t help it. 
The market came to their doors. But now that there s a little 
recession, I 
Ions because 

think you ll see heavy mortality among the top eche- 
of poor background. 

Yes. I was going to ask what was the real beginning of your in 
terest in forestry and how do you trace that development in your 

Fritz: I ve often thought about that and wondered about it, but I think 
I can pinpoint it fairly clearly. My mother s father had been a 
soldier all his life, and when he was retired to the Civil Service, 
as often happened in Germany, he was made what in this country 
would be called a ranger in the Wurttemberg Forest Service. The 
King owned the forests. Grandfather was probably in charge of a 
smal I district. 

Now it would appear that having a grandfather and also an uncle 
who were in the Forestry Service in Germany, that would have been 
an influence, but it had none whatever. In fact, it rarely oc 
curred to me that grandfather was a forester at one time. 

The real start, I think, came while I was a junior in engineering 


Fritz: at Cornell. I had made a Sunday trip, or a hike, with some of my 
classmates, although they were civil engineers while I was a me 
chanical engineer. On this walk (and of course, the country around 
Cornell campus was wooded and beautiful) they got to arguing about 
the identification of certain trees. I couldn t contribute any 
thing because a tree was just a tree to me. They were arguing as 
to whether a certain tree was a hemlock or a spruce. To me they 
were both evergreens and looked pretty much alike. But the fact 
that there was some point of difference made an impression and I 
looked up some Information on trees in the library. 

Now at this time also that was 1906, 1907 it was the era of 
preachment by Gifford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt in behalf of 
conservation, and the two men were in the newspapers a great deal. 
T. R. , of course, had the big platform. Pinchot fed him the ma 
terial although he himself was an excellent speaker and an excel 
lent writer. I read everything that the newspapers published about 
these two men and also read some of their articles. 

It happens that at that time I was enrolled in a public speaking 
course, and one week we were asked to prepare a speech, to be 
given the week following. We were permitted to copy a speech 
from someone else or write our own. So I thought it would be a 
good idea to make a speech on conservation. I took some of Pin- 
chot s stuff and some of Fernow s, and some of Roosevelt s and 
some of the others, and fitted them together and had my own speech. 
I still have that speech at home, written in lead pencil on yellow 
paper. I must look it up and preserve It. 

One question, Emanuel . Was all of this reading and acquaintance 
with the controversy over conservation derived from reading what 
we might call the popular press, the newspapers and popular maga 
zines, or did you delve into the more specialized periodical 
1 iterature? 

Yes, it was, most of it, general stuff for popular consumption, and 
as I look back on it, it was a strong pitch to get the public inter 
ested in conservation. There was very little specialized material 




available. But I did get 
My copy carries the date 
copy of Fi I ibert Roth 

a copy of Pinchot s Primer of Forestry. 

got itJanuary 20, 1907. 
s Bulletin Number Ten, on wood, 

I a I so got a 
pub I i shed i n 

How about the American Forestry magazine? 

Well, at that time it was published in a different form, and I saw 
very little of it. But in the engineering magazines that I read, 
there were occasional articles on wood and the likelihood of a 
timber famine. Of course, that would be of interest to an engi 
neer because wood in those days was an important engineering mate 


Fritz: Well, the reading and contact with the wonderful outdoors at Cor 
nell, which was quite a thing for a boy coming from a large city, 
I think was what sparked an interest in my surroundings the trees, 
plants, geology, and so on. Pinchot, being a forester, spoke and 
wrote mostly on forestry. 

While I was at Cornell, I learned that it had had a forestry school 
but that it had been closed a year or two before I entered. I made 
some inquiries about it and learned about its fate. Incidentally, 
one of my classmates, who was majoring in Liberal Arts, was the 
youngest son of Dr. Bernhard E. Fernow. The son was named Fritz, 
his first name. It happened later in my senior year, he was the 
stroke of the Arts College crew and I was the stroke and captain 
of the engineers crew. Although the engineers had the best crew, 
of course, we had a little hard luck with our number two man catch 
ing a "crab," and then another one, and letting the Arts College 
crew get ahead of us and beat us; but it was nice to be beaten by 
a fel low I i ke Fernow. 

Come to think of it, Fernow may not have been the stroke; it might 
have been LeRoy Goodrich who later became an attorney and is still 
living in Oakland, California. Rowing was my principal interest in 
athletics in college except for some cross-country running, but 
rowing better fitted my physical dimensions which weren t too ample 
anyway. I got off the track somewhere, didn t I? 

Maunder: Were you ever influenced at this time directly by anyone in for 
estry? Were there any holdovers there at the university from the 
School of Forestry who influenced you in any way? 

Fritz: Not that I know of. I had no contact with them whatever. Of course, 
the Engineering College was at one end of the campus and the Agri 
culture College was at the other, and engineers in those days looked 
upon the agricultural students as "hayseeds" and didn t mix very 
much. We rather looked down upon them; and furthermore, the Agri 
culture College was a state-supported college while Sib ley College 
at Cornell was private, and as youngsters we probably considered 
ourselves a little superior. 

I remember one day at the boarding house I was not a fraternity 
man one of the waiters, who was a short-course student in agri 
culture during the winter, was asked by one of the boys at the 
table, "Are you going to the fencing match tonight?" And he 
replied, "Fencing match tonight? We do our fencing in the spring." 
So that, 1 think, shows the gap between the agriculture students 
and the engineering students in those days. 

No, no individual had anything to do with it at Cornell, only the 

reading; and if any individuals had an influence I would say they 

were Gifford Pinchot and Theodore Roosevelt, but only in a vicar 
ious way and because of their writing. 


Fritz: 1 might add that in 191 I while I was back on the Cornell campus 
for summer school to study botany, I met the dean of the Col lege 
of Engineering. He remembered me and asked what 1 was doing. I 
told him I was going to study orestry and lumbering, and he said, 
"Why do that? There s no future in it. Wood Is an obsolete mate 
rial, not only because It Is belnq cut too fast but also because 
metals will supersede It." 

In other words, lumbering was a dying industry and therefore for 
estry would have no future. That was Dean Dexter S. Kimball, a 
fine man, and a classmate of Herbert Hoover. He was reared in the 
Seattle area and he apparently had no use for the lumber industry 
because of its destructive nature in those days. But like most 
people at that time, he saw only the destruction rather than the 
reasons for it, nor did he do anything to find an explanation of 
the situation. Pinchot was in the same category. 

At Cornell, I had a lot of spare time because, although engineer 
ing was a pretty tough course, my advance credits gave me consider 
able leeway. So I spent a great deal of time in reading magazines 
and books. You may remember possibly the old World s Work maga 
zine and the old Munsey s and the old magazine that carried the 
articles by the woman who castigated Standard Oil. What was her 

Maunder: I know who you mean Ida M. Tarbell. 

Fritz: They were classed as "muckrakers." They saw only the dark side 
of the cloud. My favorite magazines were Iron Trade Review, 
Atlantic Month I y , Outlook and Literary Digest. 

Actually my interest in forestry didn t develop and didn t really 
come to a head until I had graduated and moved back to Maryland 
with my folks in Kenwood Park outside of Baltimore, and I was ex 
posed to the outdoors more than I ever before had been. While 
there, I had a chance to do a lot of building. The house had not 
been finished when we bought it. Only the six rooms on the first 
floor were finished. The second floor was a huge open area and 
there was an attic above that, or could have been, so I laid out 
the six rooms for upstairs and had a carpenter put up the studs 
and so on. I helped him. 

We had only kerosene lamps, so we had power brought a mile from 
the main line to our house, and I wired the entire twelve rooms 
with concealed wiring. This was quite a job in a house that s 
already partly completed. I put in a pressure water system, a 
sewer system, and built a driveway with concrete curbing, and 
stuff of that kind. 

All the time I was interested in what the men were doing in the 
garden, and once in a while I d help them and when they d help me 
we d talk about plants. So being in a locality where there was 


Fritz: considerable farming and plenty of opportunity to hike, I got in 
terested in knowing one tree from another and also one flower from 
another. I bought myself a copy of Franklin Hough s Trees of North 
America. It pictured and described not only the tree but a Tib its 
wood. this was a lucky selection. I still have the book. It was 
an excellent job and just a few years ago I recommended to Double- 
day that they get the plates and republish it, only to find out 
that another publisher was on the way to doing it. 

From this book I learned the trees on our own place. We had about 
three acres of woodland, mostly oaks, and then the neighbors lots 
had many other species. There must have been twenty species of 
trees in that locality and I identified them all from that book, 
or I thought I did. 

I also collected wood specimens from some of these trees, and when 
I entered forestry school several years later, I had a good collec 
tion of wood samples. That is, the samples were good, but many 
labels proved later to be incorrect. I had those samples until 
the year I was retired from the University of California, when I 
gave them to one of my students after I corrected the labels! 

It was a lot of fun collecting wood and finding out some of the 
differences. Of course, while I was at the Polytechnic as a stu 
dent I got an excellent training in wood working as well as metal 
working. So wood collecting became somewhat of a hobby, and it 
stHI is. When I returned as a teacher in engineering, I used 
the school s excellent facilities for preparing specimens. 

As I look back on it, I can understand why laymen know so little 
about wood. I knew nothing about wood. Wood was something that 
was easy to saw and easy to plane and easy to nail and put to 
gether. We could tell walnut from oak and soft pine from hard 
pine, but beyond that we knew nothing. I sympathize today with 
people when they can t identify woods because their eyes have just 
not been opened up to its distinguishing characteristics. As I 
said, that Hough book was the starting point of my interest in 
wood technology as well as an interest in the identification of 

So, in answer to your question, you might say my interest in for 
estry began while an engineering student at Cornell, and that my 
interest in wood began while a student and teacher at the c oJy- 
technic in Baltimore. The interest was whetted by my parents hav 
ing moved to the country. When my brother Ted was transferred to 
Cuba and thus scotched our joint poultry idea, I started thinking 
of forestry. Perhaps the crusading spirit of the times also had 
an effect. Like many young men, I had more than a little of it. 
Perhaps too, 1 inherited some of my father s idealism but my 
mother s practicality probably helped toward a sounder balance. 
Years later that spirit received some hard jolts when I noticed 
that crusaders for conservation were, like some religionists, 

Fritz: not without a selfish interest and hypocrisy. 

It seemed such a natural thing in those days for a man to go Into 
conservation work because it was certainly a good movement. Just 
the definition of the word wise uso would get a young man inter 
ested, especially one who had some altruism and also a desire to 
get into some kind of public service. 

Teach i ng at Ba I timore Polytechnic 

Fritz: I might say that I would never have been a teacher in the engineer 
ing department if it hadn t been for the depression of the years 
1907 and 08. I was headed for the Pennsylvania Steel Company at 
Steel ton, Pennsylvania, now a subsidiary of Bethlehem, in the chief 
engineer s department. I worked there the summer of 1907. Appar 
ently he liked my work because he invited me to come back, and told 
me he had a very fine job for me, and asked me to write to him. 

I did write to him in February of 1908 but industries at that time 
were laying off men rather than employing them. Although this was 
a large company, they laid off hundreds, but I had a very wonderful 

letter from Mr. Hawkins, the chief engineer Elmer Hawkins, I think 
his name was who said he regretted very much that conditions were 
such that he couldn t give me the Job he had promised me. So I was 
out on my ear and I had to look for something else. 

So I took a job with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad as a special 
apprentice, a two-year apprentice class. In order to get into that 
class one had to have a mechanical engineer s degree or a civil 
engineer s degree. I worked in the Mont Clare shops helping take 
down and reassemble a locomotive. 

Just prior to that, the Polytechnic Institute principal, Lieutenant 
King, asked me i f I would consider going to the Polytechnic as a 
teacher. Naturally I jumped at the chance because the B & em 
ployed us for not much more than twenty-five hours a week, and at 
fourteen cents an hour, I was hardly making much more than carfare 
and certainly not board and room. Possibly the time I had off in 
the teaching years gave me a chance for more reading and more think 
ing than I would have had if I had gone into an eight, nine or ten- 
hour day job. Otherwise, I might have remained in engineering. 

I taught at the Polytechnic Institute for four years after my gradu 
ation from Cornell. During the week I had a room at the YMCA with 
my brother Ted and on Friday afternoon I would go home and spend 
Saturday and Sunday. A I I the vacation days were spent out there 
except the long summer vacation. 

The more my interest was excited in plants, the more books I got 
hold of and read on the subject. We also subscribed to a beautiful 

Fritz: magazine called Country Life in Ame r i ca . It was a very fancy maga 
zine about the format of Fortune today. From the reading of course 
we learned more and more or I did; I was the only one interested. 
My youngest brother was living t home while he was a student in 
medical school, so we talked about biological things once in a 
wh i le. 

Botany j_n_ Cornel I Summer School 

Fritz: Anyway, I kept on reading about forestry and began to ask my uncle, 
my mother s brother, about what forestry was like in Germany; and 
mother told me something of her father s life in the woods and the 
activities. Then I made inquiries about forestry schools. I 
learned that Cornell was going to have one again, Yale had one, 
Michigan, and there was one at Biltmore. 

I also learned, to my dismay, from the literature they sent me 
that in order to enter, one must have botany. Well, I had no botany 
nor any other biology except what I had read on my own, so I thought 
if I have to have botany to enter, then I d better study it in sum 
mer school . 

So In the summer of 1911, I went to Cornell summer school to study 
it. That was a very happy experience. We had excellent profes 
sors. One was W. W. Rowlee; another was Harry P. Brown who later 
became professor of wood technology at Syracuse and was a close 
friend until he died. The third was Dr. Anderson who gave physi 
ology; Brown taught morphology and Rowlee gave trees and other sub 
jects. Anyway, they were excellent teachers and my classmates were 
in part students who needed some extra credits or some makeup work, 
and a very large number of them were school teachers. 

I say it was happy because of the close relationship between stu 
dents and faculty and also the thrill I got out of studying botany. 
I discovered that the Latin and Greek names were not so difficult 
and also that botanical science followed natural rules like physical 
sciences and wasn t so difficult, but if anything is interesting, 
it simplifies itself from the start. 

We made a number of field trips in addition to having the labora 
tory sessions, and at the close of that six weeks concentrated 
botanical course, I determined in another year to enter forestry 
school; so I returned to the Polytechnic for my fourth year of 
teaching and gave notice that next spring I would quit. In 
cidentally, the classic names helped improve my interest in Eng 
lish, so much of which stems from Latin and Greek. 

In the same year, in Baltimore, I enrolled in an afternoon course 
in botany given by a Baltimore City College teacher. The inside 
lab work and the field trips were very helpful in spite of the 


Fritz: distraction of the women, mostly natural science teachers, I be 
ing the only male! 

Maunder: You were teaching at the same Polytechnic Institute from which 
you had been graduated? 

Fritz: The same school. The principal was the same principal when I was 
a student at the Polytechnic. He knew that I had a great respect 
for him, and he liked my family and even though I was the usual 
hell-raising kid, he forgave a lot of that. He bailed me out a 
number of times when I got into trouble, thinking that maybe I d 
settle down after I graduated from college and got a real job. 

In the teaching I had mostly shop work, the machine shop and the 
pattern shop, and believe it or not, I also had a class in black- 
smithing which was very, very interesting. Blacksmith ing in those 
days was a part of engineering. A man had to know how to make a 
weld that would stick and would be as strong as the component pieces, 
A blacksmith in those days was called upon for a lot of work that a 
machinist couldn t do on his machines. Of course, it was also a 
good experience to know what the metals were capable of doing, es 
pecially In heat treatment. 

Gradually I was given more and more responsibility, and when I de 
cided to quit teaching, I was told by the principal that he re 
gretted it because he had me lined up to head the engineering de 
partment in the year that was to follow. I had previously turned 
down a chance to go to Purdue as instructor in engineering and 
get a master s degree in engineering at the same time, but that 
came when I was weakening on engineering, and I decided that I d 
better stay where I was and make up my mind about what I wanted 
to do. 

It s a pretty good example about how a lot of boys go to college 
not knowing exactly what they want. In my case all my background 
had been engineering, seven years of it in the Polytechnic, so it 
seemed only natural to elect engineering in college. But it turned 
out to be the wrong thing for a time, as you ll learn when you 
query me about what I taught at the University of California. 



Classes, Professors, and Field Work 

Fritz: I had learned, as I said before, that Cornell was going to reopen 

its forestry school after a lapse of some years, and it had already 
appointed a dean; so while I was on the campus in 1911 for the sum 
mer school, I went up to the College of Agriculture and called on 
this dean, or the man who was to be dean. It turned out to be Wal 
ter Mulford. I told him if there was to be a forestry school there, 
I d like to be considered for entrance because Cornell was my under 
graduate university and I d like to go there; but I was treated so 
coldly and Mulford had his watch in front of him and kept touching 
it every few moments, indicating that I was a very unwelcome in 
truder, so I quickly grabbed my straw hat and walked out. 

(As a strange coincidence, Mulford was the head of the Forestry 
School when I came to the University of California to teach, and 
he was my boss for about thirty-two of the thirty-five years I was 
on the faculty. So I was right back in engineering because ! was 
to teach sawmi I I ing and wood products. ) 

Then I decided to enter the Yale Forestry School. It was a toss-up 
between Michigan and Biltmore and Yale, but I decided as long as I 
had to pay my own way, I might as well go first class and so I 
selected the Yale Forestry School. Biltmore closed the year fol 
lowing so it was fortunate I didn t enter there. Perhaps I should 
have gone to Michigan because the Michigan professors, at least 
some of them, were more practical than the ones at Yale. 

Maunder: Who was at Michigan at that time? 

Fritz: Filibert Roth, a German forester, was the dean. 

Maunder: Then you went to Yale in 1911, is that right? 

Fritz: Nineteen-twel ve, the following year. The course at Yale at that 
time was wholly prescribed. There were no electives. The course 
began in June, or was it July, on the estate of Gifford Pinchot 
near Mi I ford, Pennsylvania. He called his place "Grey T cwe -s." 
We were in the summer school there in tents for twelve weeks. 

It was a wonderful locality, very similar to the one in Ithaca, 
and had the same land formations and the same origin apparently 
a number of deep gorges in slate and shale, beautiful waterfalls 
and very interesting woods, mostly hardwood. The school in earlier 
years had done some planting so there were some plantations avail 
able for study. 


Fritz: That summer of twelve weeks on the Plnchot estate was a clincher, 
and I was more determined than ever to complete forestry. It 
wasn t so difficult after all, learning the botanical names, bio 
logical terms and so on. But I was disappointed over some parts 
of It. For example, we had a course called mensuration, that is, 
tree measurements, and they used some statistical methods which 
were very, very crude, and they applied statistical analysis to an 
object which seemed to me was not too well suited to statistical 
analysis because it was so extremely variable. I still feel that 
way about it today. Some bad crimes have been committed in publi 
cations by applying statistics blindly without a good enough know 
ledge of tree physiology. 

The teachers in the summer session were Ralph C. Haw ley and Sam Record, 
Sam J. Record was pretty much of a humorist and made a game out of 
identifying the trees. Hawley was a serious fellow, a very practi 
cal, no-nonsense man. In my opinion he was the best, as to real 
istic forestry, of the entire faculty, as I met them later on in 
New Haven. He knew his stuff and he knew the limitations of the 
knowledge of the day. He had an objective in management. He had 
actual trees and forests to manage whereas the others were more 

This was a few years after Henry Solon Graves had left to become, 
in 1910, Chief of the U. S. Forest Service. Pinchot, as you will 
recall, was thrown out by President Taft. We forestry students, 
of course, were being inoculated with the philosophy of the day 
that Pinchot was a sort of messiah in forestry and that everything 
he did was correct, so we swallowed it all. Later I had to change 
my mind about some of it. As I look back, I think Pinchot deserved 
being discharged from his Chief Forestership. He was certainly 
insubordinate and 1 believe also he got to the point where he had 
about run his course anyway. 

Pinchot did a magnificent job in the basic legislation and in or 
ganizing the U. S. Forest Service. It was organized on the basis 
of railroad organization with departments and branches and a chain 
of command and so on, but the odd thing was that nobody in the 
Forest Service knew much about the subject. They were mostly fel 
lows with the same education I was getting and without very much 
experience. Pinchot, of course, had gone to a forestry school in 
France Nancy. Henry S. Graves, who followed him as Forest Service 
Chief and the first Dean of the Yale Forestry School, was also 
a graduate of a forestry school this time, in Germany. Although 
they both wrote books, they were pretty much on the German pattern. 

I must say this: Pinchot s principal contribution to forestry un 
derstanding was, in my opinion, his Primer of Forestry, which came 
out in two volumes in hard covers. In those days one could get 
Department of Agriculture publications free. I got the Pinchot 
Primer of Forestry while I was still at Cornell, in 1907. I still 
have these books and the date is still in them. At the same time 


Fritz: I got a copy of old Bureau of Forestry Bulletin 10, of 1895. The 
title was Timber by Flllbert Roth. That was an exciting thing; 
that was more nearly In my field. That was wood, an engineering 
and building material, and I leaned some basic facts about wood 
from It to help me in my collection of wood samples. 

I stl I I look upon the Primer of_ Forestry as the best book for an 
American forester to read first". It has all the framework of for 
estry within a very few pages, and excellent illustrations. Much 
of the material, of course, is based upon European experience and 
practice. The books on silviculture of today can t teach a man 
any more than those two volumes of Pinchot s. 

The silviculture books of today are written too much from the of 
fice desk and chair by men who have had very little experience in 
the woods. They jump in and out of the woods from the highway, 
pick up a few scattered thoughts and come back and put them into 
print. The only way to learn silviculture, I believe, is to get 
the basic facts out of a book like Pinchot s, and then spend a lot 
of time deep in the woods really observing and trying to interpret 
what he sees at least, try to piece together the story as the 
forest develops. 

Well, Henry S. Graves was the Chief Forester in my student days, 
and the Dean of the Forestry School at Yale was James W. Tourney. 
Professor Tourney was a delightful and gentlemanly person. He was 
a botanist, very heavily interested in trees, and he had had some 
experience, I believe, in the old Bureau of Forestry trying to set 
up some nurseries. Tourney was, in my opinion, a good teacher. 
Some of my classmates didn t think so. Though he read the same 
lecture notes every year, he had an inflection and he expressed 
himself in such a clear manner that It was a pleasure to hear him 
speak. He made dendrology a very intriguing subject. 

At Yale we had a lot of field work, an excellent idea for any for 
estry school. We were out once or twice a week with Jim Tourney 
and once or twice a week with Ralph Haw ley. These field trips were 
eye-openers. They began to make the whole story of the forests un 
fold. Knowing something about trees made ordinary hikes for pleas 
ure much more entertaining and satisfying. 

Some of the geology and soils lore that the professors spoke about 
in teaching us about silviculture rubbed off on me and added to the 
value of the field trips. (I had never had a course in geology.) 
It happened also that one of my classmates, Temple Tweedy, had been 
a major in geology as a Yale undergraduate. His father was in the 
U. S. Coast and Geological Survey. He and I used to take hikes on 
which he would tell me a good deal about land forms and the glaciated 
country in the New England states. I recall one time he pointed out 
some scratches which he claimed were made by the glaciers on some of 
the rocks around New Haven. Then on East Rock, on another hike, he 
pointed out the pentagonal, or was it hexagonal, pattern of lava 




Maunder ; 



"crystals." I d never seen them before. In fact, rocks were just 
rocks to me before that and soil was just dirt. One learns as much 
from his fellow students as he does from his professor, especially 
In graduate school where the sti dents come from a number of other 
universities and from many different major subjects. That was cer 
tainly true at the Yale Forest School. 

Who were some of the other professors at Yale? 

Jim Tourney gave the course in dendrology and silviculture, that is, 
the lectures on silviculture. I think it was called "Si Ivies" the 
first semester. H. H. Chapman gave forest management, as it was 
called, and he gave another course too. I think it was forest 
economics. Then Sam Record gave the course on wood, its properties 
and uses, its anatomy and so on. 

Ralph C. Bryant taught us logging and lumbering. He was a most 
likable man. I learned early that he was the first forestry gradu 
ate of an American forestry school Cornell. Cornell, of course, 
had the first forestry school and he was the first one to graduate. 
Being four years or more older than most of my classmates, Bryant 
and I became very close friends. I was also very close to Sam Re 
cord and when he wrote his book on the mechanical properties of 
wood, I helped him on it and got credit for it in the preface. Of 
course, that was very simple because I had had so much of that kind 
of material at the Polytechnic and also at Cornell. 

What else can you do to 
school and its faculty? 

fill us in on the history of this important 

Of the men I have mentioned, I would say that Haw ley and Bryant 
had the most practical approach to forestry. They believed that 
forestry had to pay before it would ever be practiced. Thev were 
also decidedly not socialistic in their viewpoints. In fact, I 
don t think any of those five men (Hawley, Bryant, Record, Chap 
man and Tourney) had a socialistic viewpoint. 

On the other hand, Chapman, for one, was very anti-industry; and 
in his lectures, which were extremely involved and very difficult 
to follow, he would frequently resort to castigating certain in 
dividuals in the lumber industry, and not only in that industry but 
in forestry itself. He would even lay out Gifford Pinchot for some 
things that he did. In fact, we got the impression that no one was 
right but Chapman. 

To what do you attribute this quality? 

I would say that he was just naturally a pugnacious person and he 
comes apparently from a line of square-jawed people. I understand 
that his grandfather, Haupt, for whom he was named, was a general. 
I think he was the Quartermaster General of the Union armies in the 
War Between the States. I believe that in the past few years Her 
man Chapman has been writing a sort of a biography on the old 


Fritz: gentleman. He probably was a good Quartermaster General. I under 
stand from those who heard more about the biography locally that 
Herman Chapman himself felt that the old man was a little too 
h igh-handed. 

Maunder: Well, Chapman has had a rather influential part or role in Ameri 
can forestry circles over the years, hasn t he? 

Fritz: He had a very great influence. He gave the impression of sincerity, 
and I believe the man really believed what he said, but he was very, 
very suspicious. He was very much like Theodore Roosevelt. He 
was easily led into quarrels by some who had ulterior motives and 
used Chapman as their hatchet man. He loved a fight. 

Maunder: Did you ever go on any of the field trips in the South with H. H. 

Fritz: Yes. As I said before, Yale had a great deal of field work, and 

that was in my opinion the lifesaver. If they had taught forestry 
only from lectures and from books, it wouldn t have been worth a 
damn. You must remember that most of the students were reared in 
an urban environment. The field work is what made it a training. 
In the field, a man could see for himself and draw his own conclu 



We started with twelve weeks on the Pinchot estate in New Haven. 
We had field trips several times during the week, and then at the 
end of the first year it was a two-year course we spent two weeks 
in the Adirondacks with Ralph Hawley at Ne-ha-sa-nee Park. It was 
a private estate, a wild, beautiful area. 

Most of us took jobs in the woods during the summer of 1913. The 
second year, the senior year, closed a few weeks after Christmas 
and we were all ordered to the South for three months. Chapman was 
in charge and handled the forest management instruction while 
Bryant handled the work in logging and milling. 

My class had its field work on the property of the Great Southern 
Lumber Company in Mississippi, a few miles from Columbia in Marion 
County. That was on the Pearl River, all virgin long-leaf pine 
timber except for some second growth which occupied farm lands 
abandoned after the Civi I War. Two weeks of those three months 
were spent in Bogalusa, Louisiana, at the company s great sawmill. 

What would you have to say about the pioneering that some southern 
companies were doing in conserving the natural resources? 

Not so much conserving, but everywhere the doors were open to the 
professors, especially Bryant who was teaching lumbering. They were 
open to Chapman also. Chapman claims to have initiated the idea of 
burning longleaf pine lands to aid the seedlings overcome a needle 


Fritz: Anyway, these lumber people felt that if there was anything in 

forestry they d better find out what it is, and they gave the school 
permission to hold its senior field work on their property. Both 
Chapman and Bryant did consulting work for several companies. 

For example, I recall we had to do not only forestry work but also 
logging work. We were ordered by Ralph C. Bryant to make a study 
of log lengths. Logs in those days were mostly sixteen feet long. 
With a tape, we measured each log to the nearest inch, p I us a trim 
ming allowance. Then we made a report on how the log lengths varied 
and what effect this had on the financial status of the company. 

(Of course, if a log was one inch too short then the log really was 
two feet less and would have to be knocked down from a sixteen to a 
fourteen-foot log because the lumber lengths were all in increments 
of equal two-foot lengths, but if the log was an inch over, it didn t 
make so much difference, although that inch might have made it pos 
sible to add two feet to the top log, depending on imperfections.) 

Well, we made a report and that report found its way through Pro 
fessor Bryant to the office of the manager of the company in Boga- 
lusa, Mr. Sullivan, quite a character and a big man in that region. 
Apparently, we hit the Jackpot. He had us in his office one day 
the class was small, only about twenty, and we went down there in 
halves, so my half of ten students was in the office and Mr. Sul 
livan said, "Well, boys, I m glad this season is coming to an end. 
You ve been an awful lot of trouble to us. You ve been in the way 
of my logging crews, you ve been riding our log trains against our 
safety rules, and I ve seen some of you ride the tongs at the load 
ing machines, and we ve spent a lot of money building a camp for 
you," and he went on in that vein for a little while. 

We were getting a little nervous and we thought, well, maybe we 
weren t so welcome after all, when very suddenly he changed his 
attitude entirely and developed a broad smile and grin, and he said, 
"But boys, I want you to know we ve made money on you. Do you re 
member that report that you wrote about the log lengths? Well, I 
didn t know that that was going on in the woods. My foreman didn t 
tell me about it so I had it checked by one of my own engineers, 
and sure enough, the log lengths were not as correct as they should 
have been. 

"So all the expense that you boys have put us to has been more than 
compensated for by the saving we have made in watching our log 
lengths a little more closely. I want you to know also we were 
actually very happy to have you here and we hope that some of you 
will want a job with our company when you graduate." Then we felt 
better about it. 

Incidentally, that sawmill was the biggest sawmill in the world at 
the time. As I recall, it had four sides, four band headsaws, two 
gangs, several resaws, and while we were there they were adding a 






twin band headrlg for slabbing a small log on two sides and then 
running the cant to a gang mill. The plant had a huge burner 
which was about thirty-five feet In diameter and more than a hun 
dred feet high. The refuse conveyer to the burner was chocka- 
block full with refuse all day long. The sawmill was really a 
wonder from an engineering standpoint and for me it was a lot of 
fun. It was the only big sawmill I had ever visited, the sawmills 
I had visited before being very small in New England and in Mary 
land, but this mill was really something big. 

When Bryant asked us to prepare a report on the entire operation 
at Bogalusa, I really had a field day. My mechanical drafting and 
my knowledge of engineering, steam engineering in particular, and 
moving parts, came in very handy and I had a lot of fun writing 
the report. I spent my Saturdays and Sundays doing it and was com 
plimented by Bryant when he said that he d I i ke to have that report 

to copy for the Yale Forestry Library, 
not, I don t know. 

Whether it s there now or 

Maunder: You don t have a copy? 

I had my 
one over 

own copy for many years, 
to the Yale Forest Schoo 

and I be I leve that 
I Library. I don t 

I turned that 
recal I , but I 

think it s there. It had something like 120 pages and was very well 
illustrated with pencil drawings of the plant. I was able to help 
my classmates a good deal on that study because none of them had 
any mechanical training, and I recall several of them standing at the 
log deck wondering what made the carriage go back and forth when 
one of them said, "I know how it works. That boy riding the car 
riage presses a lever and the steam goes into that pipe under the 

Well, actually the pipe under the carriage was the pipe that led 
steam to the setwords and the carriage rider had nothing to do with 
the forward and back motion of the carriage, but that was to be ex 
pected when young fellows were thrown into a big plant like that 
without any engineering background. Of course, as a teacher later 
on, I felt it was not good practice to take a student to the very 
large sawmills but to take them to a one-side mill where they could 
study every step more thoroughly at the same time. 

Did you study 
field trips? 

the use of fire in the woods in the South on these 

Oh yes. Of course, we had fire protection courses in New Haven, 
and one of the professors would frequently blow his top because of 
the carelessness of the American public with fire, and particularly 
the lumber people, and more particularly, the woods natives who 
fired the woods each spring "to kill ticks" and invite more grass. 

As I said earlier, Chapman gave the use of fire, as a si I vicul tural 
tool, considerable study. There is a classic set of editorials in 


Fritz: the local paper of Crossett, Arkansas, in about 1930, berating the 
Yankees for trying to stop the wild fires set annually by the na 
tives. Chapman s Idea was to stop all burning except an occasional 
one under strict control to remove the high grnss around longlenf 
pine seedlings. The seedlings were not permanently Injured. Chap 
man had a running feud with public foresters and extension agricul 
turists on the subject. 

Gifford Pinchot 

Maunder: Could you give us a little bit of the picture of the controversy 

over conservation as it was going on at the time you were a student 
in college? Surely you must have been on the inside of a great 
deal of discussion there at Yale, because it was the seat of the 
Pinchot-Graves forestry group, and there must have been a good deal 
of discussion within the ranks of forestry students and faculty 
about all this at the time. 

Fritz: Well, of course I was only a student but I was four or five years 
older than most of my classmates. I heard the professors talk 
about the matter, and I read a great deal about it. I think there 
should never have been a controversy over conservation. The con 
notation of conservation, if one does make his own definition, is 
something everyone would endorse. But men like Pinchot made an 
issue of it. 

By constantly feeding information to the general public of a kind 
designed to frighten, conservationists made a lot of enemies; and 
I feel to this day that if Gifford Pinchot had then taken a dif 
ferent attitude, forestry would be much farther along today that 
it is, and there would not have developed that schism between for 
esters and the timber owners that held it back. 

It was quite a shock to me, coming from the engineering field where 
controversies were pretty well limited to technical matters. Con 
troversies in conservation were too much like those in religion of 
which I had heard enough as a boy. The whole conservation movement, 
which was all forestry in those days, was pretty much slanted. There 
were certain people who were determined to get their views adopted 
by the general public. Even to this day, conservation is a wonderful 
platform for a politician. 

I never knew Pinchot as intimately as those associated with him in 
the Forest Service, but I saw a good deal of him. I first met him 
while I was a student in the summer camp of my junior year at the 
Yale Forest School. As I told you earlier, we started our Yale 
training in camp on the Pinchot property near Milford, Pennsylvania. 
The house looked to me like a baronial castle. 

We students one day were invited to Grey Towers for what you might 


Fritz: call "tea" Plnchot at that time was a bachelor. We were all de 
ll qhted to meet the great man. Until that 1iiw, I had novor mnl 
a man of such captivating personality as 01 f ford Plnrhot. Me hofl 
a magnificent bearing; he was trjl and straight, above six feet; 
he looked distinguished with his wonderful mustache; and he spoke 
with such fervor about politics, conservation and forestry that I 
was captivated by the man. 

I regret that, in later years, I felt justified in looking at the 
man in an entirely different way. He was canned by President Taft, 
in 1910, for insubordination. When I entered the forestry school 
in 1912, the matter was still fresh. Pinchot, of course, being a 
man of tremendous energy, had to have something to do. He was 
wealthy, and he had so much experience with politics in Washington 
that the natural thing for him to do was to go into politics. 
Politics ruined the man as far as I m concerned because then he 
exhibited qualities that no one suspected before an uncontrollable 
selfishness and vi ndictiveness. 

Maunder: In what ways did these qualities manifest themselves in your 

Fritz: By the way he talked and acted. The vi ndicti veness first showed 
up in his helping to form the third party. His friend, Theodore 
Roosevelt, was not above some vi ndicti veness himself. Pinchot, 
standing on the lawn of Grey Towers, gave us a talk about what 
happened at the Bull Moose Convention in Chicago in 1912; how im 
portant it was to put T. R. back into the White House because he 
was the real strong man. He was fervid but not too convincing. 
Though I was captivated by his personality, he spoke too much like 
a he I I -fire and brimstone Sunday preacher. 

I was later soured on Pinchot by his injecting politics into his 
own department of forestry when he became governor of Pennsylvania; 
his determined effort to socialize the forest industries; his wear 
ing two hats, one for political speeches and one for Sunday: and 
his downgrading of county and state governments without doing any 
thing to improve them. He seemed to regard the federal government 
as the only form of purity and the only one to wield a stick. He 
craved power. 

Taft was no weakling. I ve since met some people who were very 
close to him from whom I learned much that is not in print. I 
think Taft s place in history will grow as the years go by, pretty 
much like Herbert Hoover has grown in stature after he was sepa 
rated from the White House by the voters. 

Theodore Roosevelt s suspicions were easily aroused, and I think 
it was this quality in T. R. that was played upon by Gifford Pin 
chot, especially while T. R. was in Africa, that brought about the 
formation of the third party, the so-called "Bull Moose," or Pro 
gressive Party. Of course, that was just Gifford Pinchot s meat. 


Fritz: Men like Harold Ickes who joined with Pinchot in promoting T. R. s 
candidacy were of a similar order idealistic, dedicated, aggres 
sive, egoistic, and over-zealous. 

Maunder: Do you think that the Bull Moose Parry might never have come into 
being if it hadn t been for Gifford Pinchot? 

Fritz: I do, indeed. I think also that T. R. would never have been so 

violently turned against President Taft if it hadn t been for Gif 
ford Pinchot s needling. Pinchot, of course, was somewhat vindic 
tive and he was going to get even in some way, and he did so by 
setting up a third party. It killed William Howard Taft politically 
and made it possible for the Democrats to win. The election of 
Woodrow Wilson pleased me because it seemed to be time for a change, 
and Wilson was a man of great learning and distinction in the field 
of government. I would have voted for him, but living in New Haven, 
Connecticut, at the time and absentee ballots having not then been 
permitted, I lost my vote in that year. 

Maunder: Would you rate Taft as strong a personality and as great a presi 
dent as either Teddy Roosevelt or Wilson? 

Fritz: He accomplished a great deal in a quiet way, and possibly more 

within the lines of legality. Theodore Roosevelt acted and asked 
questions afterwards. A good example was his deal for the Panama 
Canal Zone. Taft didn t seem to care so much about preaching to 
the public. Woodrow Wilson, of course, was an excellent president 
but his idealism had the better of his practical side. I m speak 
ing as one who knows nothing about politics except that it stinks. 
The opponent is always wrong if he is of the other party and if 
his proposals would strengthen his party. It s a case of party 
before country. 

Maunder: Well, now, what was the row 
from where you observed it? 

between Pinchot and Ba I linger all about 
How do you interpret that fight? 

Fritz: I was then only a student. One of the professors harangued us 

against Ba I linger, but I knew too little about it to judge. How 
ever, I felt that his accusers were making a mountain out of a 
molehill and were out to get somebody for some reason I didn t 
understand. I believe that Harold Ickes was quite sincere when, 
in later years, he said that he was wrong about Bal linger. Ba I lin 
ger was probably a scapegoat. Pinchot, of course, found the con 
troversy just wonderful to get himself before the public as its 
champion. Pinchot loved publicity. He was quite an actor. 

Would you be interested in a story told me by George M. Cornwall, 
founder and editor of The Timberman, published in Portland, Oregon? 

Maunder: I would. 

Fritz: | knew George Cornwall very well. For a number of years we lived 


Fritz: in adjoining blocks in Berkeley, and he often came to our house. 
He knew the situation as well as Plnchot, how the forests were be 
ing handled, and did a great deal to improve it through his maga 
zine and the Pacific Logging Congress, which he founded. 

I asked whether he ever met Pinchot, and he said, "Yes. I must 
tell you about the first time 1 ever met him. It was at the Daven 
port Hotel in Spokane, Washington. Pinchot was out there for some 
kind of a meeting, and being a publisher of a trade magazine, I felt 
that I should interview him." 

So Cornwall went to Pinchot and 
said, "Well, I ll be glad to be 

asked for an 
i nterviewed, 

interview. Pinchot 
but let s go up to my 


it i 

it will be quiet." When they got to his room Pinchot 
said, "I can think a lot better if I lie flat on my back on the 
floor," and Cornwall, being very guick-witted said, "Well, I ll lie 
down right alongside of you with my notebook and you go right 


So he put a pillow under his head, and Pinchot started off giving 
some of his background, about his father, how he happened to go to 
France to study forestry and how he got Into forestry work in this 
country. In short, it was something like this, as I recall it: 
Pinchot, feeling that, as a wealthy man s son and a Yale graduate, 
he had an obligation to improve the world, discussed it with his 
father. His father asked, "What do you want to do?" 

Gifford replied, "I d like to be useful and I think this conserva 
tion movement which is being talked about so much nowadays should 
be a good thing," and the father said, "Okay, what do you want to 
do about it?" The reply was, "I want to go to France and study 
forestry." This shows Pinchot s fervor for conservation came early 
and undoubtedly was sincere. 

Did George 

M. Cornwall s account of this interview appear in the 

Fritz: That I can t tell you. The interview took place possibly in 1910, 
maybe earlier. I understand the Timberman has developed an index 
for all its back issues so you might be able to find it there. 

Pinchot s Breaking New Ground has got to be read with some under 
standing of the times, of the man himself, and of the man who is 
thought to have prepared the material for publication, Raphael Zon. 
The book is one-sided in glorifying Pinchot. It is silent on other 
points. For example, you won t find Hetch Hetchy Valley mentioned, 
and certainly not his part in turning Hetch Hetchy over to San 
Francisco to be flooded for a reservoir. Another example is the 
sketchy and down-grading mention of Dr. C. A. Schenck, the stiff- 
necked German forester Pinchot had imported. 

Maunder: Of course, isn t that typical of almost all books as memoirs, that 


Maunder: they hold forth the things that people like to remember about them 
selves rather than being very critical of their past? 

Fritz: Yes, that may be true, but Zon -orshipped Plnchot and was himself 
a vindictive type of person and not above plagiarism. 

Maunder: Could you spell that out, the fact that Zon was, as you say, a 
plagiarist? In what area did he plagiarize? 

Fritz: I recall Zon coming to Fort Valley, Arizona, where I was in the 

Forest Experiment Station. In my presence at least, he said nothing 
that was helpful. When he left, my boss, Gus Pearson, a wonderful 
boss for anybody to have, was quite disturbed. He didn t trust Zon 
because Zon would go through our data and when he found something 
he could use, it came out for his own use. 

Several years after I resigned as editor of the Journal of Forestry, 
I got the Russian professor, Vyzsotzky, to prepare an article on 
shelter belts. He was then about eighty years old. He was des 
cribed to me as being the leader in Russia of shelter belt science, 
and even though it was in Stalinist Russia, a letter went through. 
I suggested that he write an article on shelter belts because that 
was a big issue of the day when President Franklin Roosevelt was 
asked to crisscross the whole continent with shelter belts, to 
ameliorate the climate even in distant cities. 

Maunder: Wasn t the major reason for the shelter belts to alleviate the 
dust bowl problem? 

Fritz: The dust bowl focused attention on the benefits of windbreaks.- But 
a government employee thinks expansively, and simple windbreaks 
became border- to- border belts of trees. Windbreaks are an old story 
in the United States on the plains, in the California citrus area, 
and elsewhere, long before the invention of the equally expansive 
New Deal of F. D. R. 

Maunder: Where did Zon get involved with this Russian scientist? 

Fritz: Well, he wasn t involved with him directly. I wrote to the pro 
fessor for an article on shelter belts, and I told him in my let 
ter, as I recall the letter, that there was so much controversy 
about shelter belts, ! think the Journal o_f_ Forestry should carry 
an article by someone who knows about shelter belts, how they oper 
ate, and how good they are for ameliorating climate in the immediate 
vici n ity . 

I told him also that much of our data on windbreaks seems to have 
come from Russia. Professor Vyzsotzky came back very promptly 
with an article that was published in the Journal of Forestry 
when Franklin Reed was the editor. In the last paragraph, the 
author accused Zon of using his material without credit. The 
Vyzsotzky article was really excellent and gave us a better 


Fritz: understanding of shelter belts and how they operate. 

Maunder: Is tho correspondence you had with the Russian author sill I In 
ex I stence? 

Fritz: It s in my files in Berkeley.* 

Maunder: That would be very interesting documentation to back up this 
oral history interview. 

Fritz: I hope some day to go through my correspondence files and winnow 
out the letters that might have some value in the future. I must 
have several thousand or more much more than that to go through. 
I started on it several years ago and got as far as the letter D 
or E. It thinned the files considerably, but even then they 
contain some stuff that isn t worth saving. 

Maunder: May I make a suggestion to you in that regard? Don t do too much 
winnowing because the person who is a skilled manuscripts expert 
would find things of historical interest which you might think 
very trivial or minor in interest. 

Fritz: Before we go on to another topic, please let me say a little more 
on Pinchot. I have been critical of him so far in this interview. 
Others, too, have been equally critical, for example, Wallace 
Stegner in his book, Beyond the Hundredth Meridian (Houghton- 
Mifflin Company, Boston, 1954). Nevertheless, Pinchot s lasting 
merits outweigh his demerits. He was an excellent organizer and 

The U. S. Forest Service is his monument. It has sturdily con 
tinued the high standard of public service inculcated by Pinchot. 
His charm and general charisma drew a large coterie of enthusiastc 
supporters. He had enormous energy and drive and inspired his 
colleagues to work as hard as he drove himself. He must be 
recognized forever as the leader in a great cause. 

Contrasts i n Forestry Education 

Maunder: I d like to throw out one more question before we leave the 

discussion of your education. How would you contrast engineering 
and forestry education in those days? 

Fritz: There s no comparison. Even in those days, engineering was really 

The Papers of Emanuel Fritz are deposited in Bancroft Library, 
University of California, Berkeley, California. 


Fritz: a tough subject. It was about as tough as medicine. I saw what 
medicine is like because my younger brother was a medical student, 
and while he had thicker books than I had, he didn t have to work 
any harder than I did. It meant sitting up late at night and do 
ing mathematical problems and laboratory reports, engineering 
test reports and so on. Two, three, or four of us who worked to 
gether would often sit up until one and two o clock, working up 
the data. Of course, it could have been done in much less time, 
but my party happened to be interested and wanted to turn out re 
ports that we could use ourselves later on in engineering practice, 

Maunder: Do you mean that this kind of hard work was not necessary in for 
estry education? There was no burning of the midnight oil? 

Fritz: Not at all. I probably had to work harder than the other stu 
dents in my forestry class because I had no background of biology, 
and it was rather tough having shifted from a physical science to 
a biological science, but at the same time it was a fascinating 

I think our forestry professors did the very best they could with 
the equipment they had. By equipment, ( mean the knowledge of 
forestry. What they taught us Is what they learned only a few 
years earlier from their own professors, and they In turn got it 
from the Germans or the French. So there wasn t too good a basis 
for forestry in America. It was mostly forestry by the book. 

Of course, in a course like dendrology given by Jim Tourney, that 
was different. That was merely applied botany and Tourney did have 
a great background in biology and botany, and he made the course 
in dendrology extremely Interesting. He actually made the trees 
live for us, and although we had never seen many of those trees 
except from his word pictures, we could get pretty good mental 
pictures of the trees he was talking about, and we had to learn 
about five hundred. Nowadays I think they teach only about fifty 
or seventy-five, picking out the most important commercial species. 

Well, as to the contrast between the two, there couldn t have been 
the thoroughness when I was a student that is possible today. 
Most of the teachers at that time didn t have a biological back 
ground and no background in economics, or a very thin one, and no 
background in engineering. It s amazing that they did as good a 
job as they did. In contrasting the two, I would say that in en 
gineering, we had such a broad background for engineering in mathe 
matics and physics, a little bit of chemistry, a world of theoreti 
cal mechanics, and laboratory work, and actual work on machines 
that could not have been duplicated at that time in forestry. 

The forestry teachers of today are equipped far better than we 
were in my own teaching career, and the students we have today 
are those who will become the teachers of the future and, in turn, 
will be far better equipped than the present teachers. Of course, 





that s true of the entire teaching profession, 
somewhat the idea? 

Does that give you 



I think so. Do you think there Is ^uch difference in teaching 
techniques today, in comparing them with earlier methods? 

There was an awful lot of crusading that crept into teaching then. 
We don t get much of that today. For example, I think I said 
earlier that in one course, the professor would stop and in very 
strong terms, condemn this or that individual or industry. I d 
never heard anything like that in engineering school, but it seemed 
to be the thing to do in forestry, and it seemed also that it was 
the purpose of some of the teachers to make zealots or crusaders 
out of their students. That s something I didn t like. 

Do you think that could be explained by the fact that forestry 
was a new profession emerging on the American scene, and it was 
striving mightily for recognition by the dramatic method of tak 
ing up a holy crusade? Do you think that entered in, or is that 
not a valid interpretation? 

Quite so. American forestry teaching was new. There was almost 
no practice of forestry in the woods. The first teachers had to 
write the textbooks. There was almost no research. Basic principles 
were derived from the Germans and French. 

The conservation movement goes .back many years. It had its formal 
beginning, I should say, in 1875 when the American Forestry Asso 
ciation was founded, and it had articulate proponents all the 
years since, beginning with a man by the name of John A. Warder 
and running all the way down into and through the Pinchot days. 
Some of the men who were in the top echelons of the Forest Service 
following the Pinchot days, and I would say a few even up to the 
present, also had that crusader idea. For a long time, I think 
some of the top Forest Service men tried to emulate or imitate 
Gifford Pinchot. 

Some were socialistic and felt that forests should be publicly 
owned and managed. Socialism is only one step removed from a dic 
tatorial and wasteful bureaucracy. For one who was brought up in 
the private enterprise atmosphere, as I was at home, socialism is 
anathema. We felt that one should work for everything he gets and ze 
compensated accordingly. If he gets something for nothing, he has 
less respect for it. 

I still think this theory is right. I couldn t stomach some of the 
propaganda that was handed out in the early days of my forestry 
career, that everybody, under pain of ostracism, should run for the 
banner of those who are arguing for federal ownership, or at least 
federal control. I do believe, however, that forestry teachers soon 
developed a strong independence of Pinchotism and helped halt the 
trend toward socialism. 


Fritz: The lack of forestry was due to the abundance of timber which, in 
turn, begat too many sawmills and invited instability and a migra 
tory industry. The owners were burdened with holding charges, taxa 
tion, interest, protection, adrl nlstration and so on. A few of them 
made a lot of money and became weal Thy men as a result of their own 
ership. But It was just like mining It isn t every hole you dig 
that is going to bring up pay dirt. A lot of lumbermen went broke. 



The Context of Government and I ndus i ry 

Maunder: Let s go back to your career again and start you off as a practic 
ing forester. When did that actually begin and where? 

Fritz: First of all, you re making it appear that my career was really 
of some importance. It is a fact that during my lifetime, I saw 
the conservation movement really get underway, the national forest 
system set up, the philosophy of liquidation changing over to a 
philosophy of holding and tree farming, also a change in the atti 
tude of the federal government, and of course, a big change in the 
national forest system in that the public lands are now actually 
in the timber selling business in a big way. But my own part was 
that of an i ndi vidual . 

Maunder: There have been some big changes in industry, too. It has often 

been characterized as being a sick Industry in those days, Emanuel. 
How would you characterize the industry as you recall it in the 
years just preceding World War I? 

Fritz: As I said earlier, there was too much timber available for cutting. 
It would have been better if more of it had been kept on ice in 
the public domain and sold only as the market needed it. By "sold," 
I mean "in fee." Before World War I, the wail was, "What s wrong 
with the lumber industry?" Whatever was wrong was the result of 
too many land owners forced into building mills to earn funds for 
taxes and interest. The consequence was too many mills, overpro 
duction, and no, or too little, profit. 

Maunder: You mean a really sick industry? 

Fritz: It was sick in the same sense that farming has always been sick. 
Too many men were trying to produce a product that too few people 
were ready to buy. In lumbering, the very fact that certain people 
owned timber was an impelling motive to operate that timber, to get 
it off the stump, through the mill and into a salable product before 
the bond holders would foreclose. The result is that the producing 
capacity of the sawmill industry was far above what the market re- 
qui red. 

You still have the same thing in farming today except that in farm 
ing you are actually paying a man to create a surplus whereas in 
the lumber business, those who created a surplus suffered from it 
themselves, and of course made the rest of the industry suffer also. 
That has now changed because the economic situation is different, 
the preponderance of old growth is now a thing of the past, and 
those who own what old growth is left what s in private hands 
know that they ve got to husband it and handle it more carefully 


Fritz: than they ever did. They re now making money, making money as 

industrialists rather than merely as timber holders, and they have 
set up the successlul troo farm system at no cost to the public. 

Maunder: You recall Thomas B. Walker, the lumberman who came out here from 
Minnesota and became a big pine land owner in northern California? 
He wrote an article for the editor of Sunset magazine in January, 
1910, entitled "Forests for the Future?" TrTthis article, he evi 
denced a serious concern for conservation of forest resources and 
he recognized some of the main reasons why the harvest of wood up 
to that time had left approximately two-thirds of the product to 
waste and took only one-third for use. 

He cites as the main reasons for this rather terrible waste: I) 
excessive local taxes on standing timber, 2) competition of more 
cheaply produced Canadian lumber (and this reason Walker said was 
very much overlooked, yet in his estimation it was perhaps the 
greatest factor responsible for waste in the woods), and 3) need 
for conservation and reforesting was fully expressed at the time, 
but no definite plan was suggested by anyone or outlined by anyone, 
whereby and through which provisions for future supply could be 
provided either by the Forestry Commission or the Forestry Depart 
ment or any other group of the community. 

Walker in this article purported to present a practical plan which 
he thought might deal with this problem, and the plan which he 
proceeded to outline involved a pattern of government control and 
regulation, both of prices and of labor and of the tariff and all 
the rest, which would seem rather far down the road to socialism 
by many businessmen today. Yet here was one of the biggest business 
men in the lumber industry of his day suggesting a plan of this kind. 
Th is was in 1910. 

Fritz: Do you recall the month in which that appeared? 

Maunder: That was in January, 1910, pages 59 to 65, Sunset magazi ne. 

Fritz: I must look that up. I didn t know about that article until you 

mentioned it, but I must say that it certainly was not in character 
for T. B. Walker to ask for public regulation because he was first 
of all an individualist. 

Maunder: I think you ll find the reading of that article quite a surprise. 

It certainly was to me, to see this coming from the pen of a prominent 
bus! nessman. 

Fritz: He was a very large owner, and he spent a great deal of money as 
sembling that big property from the small separate ownerships, but 
I can understand in a way why he should have felt that way at that 
time. I recall that in 1915 when I was in the Forest Service in 
Montana, I was one of the younger assistants on a study of the lum 
ber industry in the Inland Empire, and some of the lumbermen I 






talked to had somewhat the same idea, that the timber should never 
have been allowed to get out of government hands on such a large 
scale. Of course, that sounded all right at that time, but look- 
Ing back, I don t think It wou d have solved anything because the 
government is not better than private industry in managing a business, 

Now Walker, like some of the others, understood that the producing 
capacity of the sawmills was far greater than was required by the 
market, and by having some kind of control, I think he felt that it 
would prevent the construction of some sawmills which made it im 
possible for a reasonable number to operate at a profit. 

He also indicated that he would be in favor of curtailing the pro 
duction of those sawmills which were already in production. In 
other words, they could only produce a certain percentage each year. 
This was part of his plan. 

That sounds almost like the crop-control 
probably would have been a good thing if 

schemes of today. It 

it could have been run by 

the industry itself, 
of federal policing. 

I m much more in favor of self-policing than 

think it was Walker s idea that this thing should be tried first 
of all on a voluntary basis and that if this failed, then the 
federal government should step in and lower the boom on those who 
wouldn t abide by the regulations. 

Fritz:" I want to digress for a moment because I feel that the federal 

government is basically responsible for that situation. The fed 
eral government, beginning in the early 1860 s when Abraham Lincoln 
signed the Homestead Act, started the breakdown of the timbered 
domain into small ownerships. The philosophy was to get the land 
into the hands of the public in 160-acre parcels. The law was 
designed primarily for homesteading prospective farm land, but it 
was absolutely bad and self-defeating when it was applied to tim 
ber I and. 

I think that was brought out very, very well by an early director 
of the U. S. Geological Survey, Major J. W. Powell. He got himself 
into a lot of unpleasantness because he protested the application 
of the Homestead Law to the timbered areas of the West. That has 
been brought out again in more recent books bearing on Major Powell s 
life and his philosophy, and also books on the winning of the West. 

Maunder: In other words, the western lands, forested lands, were not sus 
ceptible of development in the same way as the prairie farm land? 

Fritz: Correct. 

Maunder: Would you explain a little bit how you feel it would have been 

better, how the land policy of our government might have been more 
wisely carried out? 


Fritz: First of all, let s see how it actually worked out. The Homestead 
Act made it possible for a citizen to obtain title to 160 acres of 
valuable timber. Later the Timber and Stone Act was passed to pro 
vide for a similar breakdown. One hundred and sixty acres might 
make a good farm, but it can t support a sawmill. It takes a large 
area of timber to operate a sawmill economically and certainly a 
great area to do it on a sustained-yield basis. 

By breaking the land down into I60 s, Congress practically invited 
the patentee to cash in at once by sel ling to a sawmi I I man. Be 
ing mountainous and rough, the land couldn t be farmed anyway. Many 
of these 160-acre "claims" were settled on with full knowledge that 
the timber was easy to sell. Fraud was invited. Timberland locators 
took train loads of "homesteaders" west, went through the simple 
formality of filing each on a 160, paid each one maybe $150, and 
sent them all back home. This is only a slight oversimplification 
of the situation. 

In other cases, the timber agent would file fraudulent claims for 
nonexi sting people. Thus large blocks were reassembled. The 
agent was actually representing a timberland investor who financed 
him. It caused a scandal and some agents, along with several con 
gressmen, were jailed. The U. S. was paid the full price per acre, 
but the intent of the law was clearly violated, even though the 
intent was an error. What Uncle Sam had fragmented, the timber in 
vestors reassembled. 

Unfortunately, the process of reassembling the quarter sections 
into manageable blocks stopped too soon. As a result, we suffered 
the consequences up to and through the I940 s. Northwestern Cali 
fornia presents a good example. There, many of the "homesteaded" 
or Timber and Stone Act quarter sections remained in the hands of 
the original patentees or their heirs. This was in a region of 
Douglas fir forests, east of and adjoining the redwood forest belt 
and considered inaccessible. 

Came World War II with its tremendous lumber requirements. It hap 
pened that many of the small loggers of Oregon and Washington, 
finding themselves out of timber and hearing about the large area 
of "inaccessible" Douglas fir in northern California, looked it 
over and liked it. Much of it was owned by ranchers who had tried 
for years to get rid of it by burning to create more grass. Some 
sold their stumpage for as little as one dollar per M board feet, 
at which price even a small logger could afford to build roads into 

The result was a multitude of small logging operators each laying 
out his own road system, independent of his neighbor. Small loggers 
generally are heavily in debt for equipment and working capital. So 
they had to economize and did so by doing horrible jobs of high- 
grading. The lands still show the effect. They and the owners took 
unfair advantage of the state s Forest Practice Act, passed in 1945. 
Now some areas are a shambles, even unfit for grazing. 


Fritz: As I said earlier, it was a mistake to throw the timbered parts 
of the public domain into the laps of the general public just by 
signing the two land laws I mentioned. The eventual owners, most 
of them, had to be able to buy solid blocks cheap and hold them 
until the market Justified another fully integrated lumbering op 
eration. Much of this land has been, held thirty to forty years 
to give the eventual sawmill another twenty years of life. The 
last acre of some of it wi I I not be reached until the year 1990 
or 2000. All the while, it is being taxed but returns no dollars. 

Maunder: This is one of those things where we can look back very easily 
with the advantage of hindsight and say that this was a bad law 
from a certain point of view. Of course, it wasn t as easy to 
see it in those days as it is now. 

Fritz: There were people who saw it. Major Powell saw it. The lumber 
people saw it. Otherwise they would not have undertaken the re- 
assemblage of the fragments into large efficiently operable blocks. 

Maunder: But that didn t come until considerably later than the I860 s, am 
I not right? 

Fritz: Major Powell was a contemporary of the early founders of the con 
servation movement that jelled in 1875 with the formation of the 
American Forestry Association. They were still for reconstituting 
solid large tracts in the I930 s when land was cheap. Uncle Sam 
should have done better. 

But such things move slowly take, for example, the wasteful mix 
ture of public lands in the Oregon and California Railroad land 
grant areas. Here, 2,500,000 acres of Douglas fir, administered 
by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior, 
intermingle with National Forests of the Department of Agriculture 
in a checkerboard pattern. Many people have recommended that 
trades be undertaken between the two bureaus, the state of Oregon 
and private owners to eliminate the checkerboarding. While in 
the Interior Department on a three-month writing assignment in 
1938, I tried to stir up some active interest in the realignment 
of the lands for more economical administration and operation but 
got nowhere. Federal bureaus cherish their status quo. 

In the New Hampshi re Forestry Department 

Maunder: Suppose we go back again to your early days after leaving Yale. 
You had worked in New Hampshire for a while. What was your job? 

Fritz: I was in New Hampshire on three jobs: the summer of 1913, two 
weeks at Christmas, 1913, and seven months after graduation in 

The summer of 1913, with the help of two boys, I made a forest 



survey of two properties, of about five hundred acres each. One 
was on Sunapee Lake and the other was on Thorndike Pond. They were 
small properties owned by wealthy people who had heard a lot about 
forestry and wanted to give It P. fling to see what was in it. I 
might say that an awful lot of people In those days heard about 
forestry and thought they d look into It, but generally were dis 
appointed because it just didn t make sense when there wasn t a 

market to buy 
cost money. 

their forest product. Also, good forest practices 

However, I still think that there are a lot of things that an 
owner could have done that wouldn t have cost him much but which 
would have left his land in a more viable condition after logging. 
You can see that a I I over the West where some good practices were 
followed merely by chance. 

Maunder: Were you making up these management plans as a private consultant 
or as a member of the Forest Service? 

Fritz: I was employed as an assistant in the Forestry Department of the 
state of New Hampshire. Edgar C. Hirst was the State Forester, a 
very fine man. It was a great pleasure to work for him. In fact, 
all the immediate bosses I had in state and government service in 
forestry were top men. 

Maunder: Is this the same Edgar Hirst who is now a banker? 

Fritz: President of the First National Bank of Concord, and still a fac 
tor in New Hampshire conservation, and particularly forestry. I 
think he s president this year of the Society for the Protection 
of New Hampshire Forests. 

That was an interesting experience, that summer in New Hampshire. 
Here was I, a graduate student at the Yale Forestry School, sent 
out to make two management plans, and frankly, I was confused as 
to the application of the theory I had learned in the classroom. 
Perhaps too, I had some skepticism of its practicality. When I 
was a junior at Cornell in engineering, I could have gone out and 
done a more responsible job in sawmill ing. But I think that the 
lack of competency in forestry was largely due to the newness of 
the art, and perhaps it was still as new to the teachers. However, 
I think I learned a great deal on these jobs that was of inesti- 
mab le va I ue later. 

Maunder: Forestry was just beginning to get its feet under it in this country 
and had nobody of real experience on which to draw. 

Fritz: That s right. I don t lay it to the teachers. Perhaps being city 
bred made the forestry management phase a mystery. I still have 
the maps I made for those two plans and they look pretty much like 
Joseph s coat because of the many colors. 

Maunder: Were your plans followed? 


Fritz: On Thorndike Pond, when the word got around that there were so- 
called timber cruisers on this property, a wealthy man who owned 
property on the other side of the lake a wealthy Boston I an who 
had a summer house there thought, "That property is going to be 
logged off. I d better buy it before it s logged to preserve my 
scenic view." 

My report was instrumental in his buying the property in one block. 
The owner was a woman from New Jersey who inherited it and had no 
particular use for it as far as I could see. It was all volunteer 
growth, second growth pine and hardwoods. 

My other area I think was cut somewhat according to my plan, but 
if I was correctly informed by the source, the owners were talked 
into cutting it more heavily than was recommended, probably talked 
into it by a logger. Too often a land owner thinks the logger 
knows more about values than the forester, and he falls for the 
logger s pitch. We ve had a lot of that in California in the last 
fifteen or twenty years. When the owner discovers that he was 
over! nf I uenced by the logger, he gets pretty mad. Then he calls 
on foresters to help bail him out. 

Maunder: After your summer s experience in New Hampshire, where did you go? 

Fritz: I had to go back for my senior year at Yale. The senior year ended 
in June, 1914, but in March, the class went to Mississippi for 
three months of field work. I had no desire or intention of going 
back to New Haven to get my Master s diploma handed to me from the 
platform, so several of us took passage on a boat from New Orleans 
to New York, a five-day trip, and while we were at sea they were 
holding the commencement exercises in New Haven. 

I had thought I might get a job with the U. S. Forest Service. I 
had my Forest Service examination behind me in which I didn t think 
I did too well. I had a good passing grade, and I should have done 
much better but, during the two seven-hour exam days, I had a very 
severe and painful attack of lumbago which made it impossible for 
me to move in the seat, not even to go out to the toi let.* 

So one part of the examination (Forest Management) I never reached, 
but I got a passing grade; and I understand I would have been given 
an appointment but Congress was slow in passing the appropriation 
bill and I figured that any Congress that is so slow in passing an 
appropriation pay bill wouldn t have much interest in its employees, 
so I thought, "To hell with it," and took the first job that came 
my way and returned to New Hampshire. 

*The lumbago is a souvenir of two weeks on the Yale Forest at Keene, 
New Hampshire, during the 1913 Christmas vacation, where I was 
employed with two classmates to cut gray birch to release the white 
pine seedlings it was choking. The souvenir is still with me. 


Fritz: The State Forester of New Hampshire had asked me to come up there 

to make a number of what he called "panoramic lookout maps" for use 
on lookout stations for aiding the lookout man in identifying the 
location of fires. The map was twenty-six inches in diameter; there 
was a three-inch wide ring on the outside and twenty inches inside 
the ring. To the twenty- Inch area was fastened a planometric map 
and in the three-inch annular area, I drew in the panorama, the en 
tire view from the lookout station. 

It was done with a very clever special type of alidade. It was very 
crude. It started as a two-foot carpenter s folding rule at first, 
with the six-inch ends turned up with a piece of stiff paper on one 
end which could be moved up and down with the line of sight. It was 
developed by Professor F. B. Knapp, of the Eric Forest School at 
Duxbury, Massachusetts, and the New Hampshire State Forester took 
it up. A man by the name of Falconer, who was then employed by the 
State Forester, made a better instrument of brass, and I used the 
one he developed. Before I quit I had a still better one developed. 
I changed the rack and pinion to a screw thread to give it a finer 

I made fifteen of those maps, from Pawtackaway Mountain in southern 
New Hampshire all the way up to Deer Mountain in northernmost New 
Hampshire, including several mountains in the White Mountain area. 
I had to climb so many mountains not only the lookout mountains 
but other mountains to get the terrain that it never occurred to 
me that it would be of any interest to climb Mount Washington. I 
saw this fine mountain from all sides and I didn t see anything 
could be gained by getting on top of it. 

That was an interesting experience too. It taught me an awful lot 
about at least one state and one state s forest fire organization 
and the growing pains of state forestry. This is a good time to 
give Ed Hirst credit for being one of the top men among state for 
esters of his day. He was a good organizer; he was a fine man to 
work with and for, and he gave his assistants a lot of authority, 
a lot of responsibility and a lot of time to do a good job. New 
Hampshire, I think, was the first to use a circular lookout map 

Maunder: You hear a great deal about the contributions which the U. S. For 
est Service made, especially in such areas as the fighting of for 
est fires in the early days. What about the state forestry agencies? 
Were they also in the front rank of this movement? 

*The New Hampshire circular fire locating map and the alidade are 
described in the Timberman, 1915 (Portland, Oregon). Also in the 
Sib ley Journal of Engineering of December, 1917, and The Geographical 
Re v i ew 6 : 6 : 50 1 -503 . The lead paragraph of the Timberman artlc le was 
prepared by the Forest Service District Office, and Fritz by-line 
was replaced with the District Forester s name to make it an "offi 
cial" contribution. 



I think they were about on a par. Of course, the Forest Service 
wasn t set up until 1905 while some states were in the fire pro 
tection business before the federal government. The state of Cali 
fornia, for example, set up a Board of Forestry way back in the 

Most of 
the need 

It didn t 
days amounted 
the effort was directed to the public to 

I880 s and fire protection was one of its objectives, 
amount to much, but no fire protection effort in those 
to a great dea I . 
educate it as to 

for protection. 

Maunder: But did they pioneer the field? 

Fritz: Both state and federal foresters did. They cooperate now more 
than ever. New York and Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Hampshire 
and California I would say led the parade. I was quite surprised 
to learn when I came to California that California was so early in 
setting up a Board of Forestry. 

The U.S.F.S. was set up in 1905. In 1910, it had the great 
2,000,000-acre fire in the Inland Empire. This fire I think came 
at a good time. It brought more attention by Congress and more 
money. Looking back, all fire protection efforts seem pitifully 
feeble. But improvements came rapidly. Not only was it necessary 
to learn how to fight fires, study causes and invent equipment, but 
the biggest obstacle was public apathy really worse than that be 
cause many locals believed fires a good thing! From these small 
beginnings, we now have forest fire organization and equipment 
similar to a military campaign. 

Maunder: Do you recall anything more about your experience in New Hampshire 
that would be of value in regard to the history of fire fighting 
or any other aspect of forestry? 

Fritz: Well, it was cut and try. We tried this and tried that. It was 
felt that when you have a fire, in order to put it out, you can t 
go to the city fire department and get a hook and ladder truck or 
a steamer to go out there and put it out. It had to be fought by 
hand, and that called for hand tools: shovel, mattock, pick, and 
so on, and a little later, hand pumps for spraying water on little 
f i res. 

The State Forester in New Hampshire had one of his men design a 
tool box in which he would keep fire fighting tools, and these 
boxes of tools were distributed here and there in critical areas. 
I recall one day one of the men I think it was Falconer set up 
the box outside the State House and brought along all the tools to 
see how they would fit in the box. Being interested in photography 
at the time, I asked him to arrange all the tools in such a way that 
the box would show open and the tools would be displayed to show 
what goes in. I took the photograph which the State Forester later 
used in his annual report, one of the first photographs taken of a 
box of fire fighting tools. 


Fritz: Fire fighting was hard work, of course, especially with hand tools, 
and more often than not the fire got the upper hand, that is, dur 
ing periods of real fire weather. 

Well, the experiences In New Hampshire were especially valuable, I 
think, in teaching me a little more of woodsmanship. I was alone 
most of the time on the mapping Job. I didn t know the country 
although the maps were easy to follow. 

Maunder: What was your base of operations? 

Fritz: Concord was the headquarters, but I was there very little until the 

Maunder: You were in the field most of the time? 

Fritz: Yes. I would come in to Concord once in a while to make a fresh 

start. Travel was by railroad, horse and wagon, and afoot. I would 
go by railroad to the nearest station to my next mapping mountain, 
and would then get the local fire warden, who was a part-time man, 
to drive me to the foot of the trail, or I would hire a horse and 
buggy and have somebody drive me over. Once in a while there was 
an automobile available. 

I recall one time I was in a stagecoach, one of the last of the 
old Concord coaches left. It was a coach that oscillated back and 
forth between the railroad station and the famous Agasslz House at 
Bethlehem, New Hampshire, the only stagecoach of that type I ever 
rode in. 

The job gave me a pretty good idea of mountain forms and of forests, 
and being alone, I had a lot of opportunity to size things up. i 
think that was the best education in forestry so soon after leav 
ing school. Being out in the woods on my own made it possible to 
really see what has happened after logging and try to figure out 

Of course, there was still some virgin timber in some areas in New 
Hampshire in the neighborhood of Waterville, for example, and In 
Coos County, the northernmost county in New Hampshire, and on 
McGalloway Mountain that was all virgin and on some of the others. 
And the lookout men told me a great deal. They were mostly woods 
men, trappers and hunters and so on. They were a great source of 
woods lore and woods knowledge, which has been very valuable. 

It s regrettable that we can t have in our forestry profession 
today men of that type. They were really good. They knew the 
woods and how to get around. They didn t bitch about the weather 
and worked long hours. They enjoyed every minute of it. They 
knew how to swing an axe; they knew how to find a corner; they 
knew how to follow through the woods on a straight line; and they 
were men to watch because you could learn from them. Sometimes 



they played some pretty mean tricks on city boys like myself but 
we had to take them in good humor. It was all part of the training, 

Maunder: Do you recall any of those trices? 

Fritz: I remember one old ranger that was in the Forest Service after I 
came West. He made me believe he had no more saddles. Of course, 
he s going to have a saddle for himself, and the supervisor must 
have a saddle, and the timber salesman must have a saddle, but 
this new guy over here, Fritz, he s going to have to ride this old 
flea-bitten mare bareback. Well, I d never ridden a horse before 
but this horse had such a broad back that I couldn t fall off of 
it, so I made it all right. 

They also played tricks on one another. They were a good lot and 
I enjoyed those fellows. They even played tricks on the supervi 
sors. The supervisors, as woodsmen, were as green as some of the 



They used the experiment of the observation tower for the first 
time in New Hampshire, didn t they? 

I don t know where the forest fire lookout stations started. At 
first, there were no towers. Observation was from a cleared moun 
tain top. New Hampshire had plenty of mountain tops; it also had 
some crude towers. Some of the towers were merely poles set up 
like a frustum of a pyramid with a platform on top. I have an 
article, "Recollections of Forest Fire Detection of Fifty Years 
Ago," that appeared in Volume 22 (1962) of the Log ge rs Ha nd boo k . 

I had some interesting experiences on those towers; some were not 
safe to climb. I recall the one on Deer Mountain in New Hampshire. 
That was only a platform of peeled poles slung between the tops of 
two spruce trees, right on top of the mountain. When the wind blew, 
those trees swayed and the platform, of course, aggravated the swing. 
When I arrived on that mountain to make my panoramic map, I was told 
that there was my tower, and that if I had to make a map from it, 
I d better get up there and start before the wind blows. 

I couldn t work except in the early and late hours of daylight, 
when the sun was coming up and going down and would silhouette 
the ridges. I couldn t do very much at midday. I guess I was about 
a week making that map. Generally, it took anywhere from five days 
to two weeks. I lost a lot of time on account of fog and clouds. 

When I got to the end of my panorama mapping, I yelled down to the 
about half an hour, I ll be finished drawing, and 
come up and give me the names of some of these valleys 

lookout man, "In 

I want you to 

and ridges." And his answer was, "Young feller, 

that platform, either alone or with you up there with me 

I m not 

never been 

going up 

I ve 
up there and I m never going to go up there. It isn t 



In Montana and Idaho With the U. S. Forest Service 




Emanuel, you told us about your first experience as a practicing 
forester up In New Hampshire. You went on from that point to 
what other work? 

The New Hampshire job was a temporary one. It involved the prepa 
ration of about fifteen of these panoramic maps, and after I had 
completed the office work during the winter in Concord, I was 
through. About a month prior to that I was offered a position in 
the U. S. Forest Service by David T. Mason. I had already turned 
down two offers from the U.S.F.S., and the third was to be the 
last; and since my New Hampshire job was to come to an end, I took 
the Forest Service job which would assign me to Missoula, Montana, 
under D. T. Mason. I had met Mason a few months earlier when he 
lectured at the Yale Forest School. 

Incidentally, I had never had any expectation of moving west be 
cause New Hampshire looked good to me, and even though the job in 
the state Forest Service was not permanent, I thought New Hampshire 
would offer an excellent opportunity to invest savings in abandoned 
farms and bring them back into timber production. Land was cheap. 
One could buy an abandoned farm for two or three dollars an acre, 
which would be a good investment for tree planting. 

The job in the west turned out to be part of a study of the lumber 

industry. It was to be nation-wide, and, as I recall it, William 

B. Greeley was to head it in Washington, and Mason had charge of 

the Inland Empire division, and I was merely an assistant to ob 
tain data in the field. 

What was the year that you moved to Montana? 

That was January, 1915. My work on that project was to visit lum 
ber company offices in northern Idaho, and also in eastern Oregon 
and Washington, to obtain data on price fluctuations, production, 
shipments, and so on. I was in the offices of the Humbird Lumber 
Company, the Pot latch Lumber Company, the Palmer Lumber Company in 
eastern Washington, the Spirit Lake Lumber Company, and several 
others, taking data from their old invoices. The lumber industry 
received the field men very cordially and was very friendly. 

Apparently, the study was undertaken by the Forest Service because 
it wanted to ease off some of the criticism the Bureau of Corpora 
tions had provoked by its very unfriendly report of several years 
earlier. It seems that the Bureau of Corporations, without any 
understanding of the lumber industry s situation, made some state 
ments which the industry resented and which the Forest Service men 
felt were not justified or correct. 

The new study was undertaken to get facts from the standpoint of 


Fritz: men who knew something about the Industry. It was a very pleasant 
assignment. The treatment I received In the lumber company offices 
was, as I said, friendly, and I met many new people and found out 
what the lumber industry is in various parts of the west and had 
an opportunity to visit some forests and some forestry offices, 
all of which added up to some additional experience. 

Maunder: Specifically what data were you collecting? 

Fritz: Data on prices, shipments, production .... 

Maunder: Over a period of years starting with the origin of the company? 

Fritz: As far back as the records would permit. 

Maunder: What did you encounter in the way of record resources? 

Fritz: Some companies had preserved their records very carefully in 

specially made boxes for their storage. Apparently after storage, 
they were not again touched because I noticed the dust on the tops 
was undisturbed. 

Maunder: Which of the companies that you visited had the most complete 

Fritz: Potlatch at Potlatch, Idaho. They had perfect records. The man 
ager at Potlatch was A. W. Laird. Mr. Laird was a wonderful type 
of man, a real gentleman, and apparently a good manager. He was 
very friendly. One day he passed my desk, and he put his hand on 
my shoulder and said, "Young man, how are you getting along?" 

I said, "Very well, sir, and I want to thank you for the courtesies 
shown me and the cooperation of your staff," which got him to con 
versing, and he said, "We like you men from the regional forestry 
offices but we are never sure what will happen to the data when 

it reaches Washington where it might be twisted around to serve 
somebody s own purpose." That comment has never escaped me and 
many things that have happened since have convinced me that Mr. 
Laird was correct in his suspicions. 

Maunder: Can you point out any Instances in which data that you collected 
and which subsequently was forwarded to Washington was treated in 
that way? 

Fritz: Not in the lumber industry study. I think that was a very honest 
job, possibly because Greeley was a man of a very high standard of 
professional ethics. But in the 1930 s, I think, a report was pre 
pared in Washington, a rather extensive one, known as the Cope I and 
Report. Some of the chapters were signed by members of the Forest 
Service, but several told me that their statements were revised in 
such a way as to slant them in favor of the Forest Service s con 
tention that the lumber industry must be controlled. 


Maunder: And was this a violation of the original report that they had 

written, a violation of the spirit and the facts of what thoy had 
orlql nal ly c >1;ilod? 

Fritz: The spirit was completely different In the Thirties than what it 

was before World War I, the short time I was in the Forest Service, 

Maunder: No. I mean these field reports were twisted, you say, in the I930 s 
in Washington so that they said something different than what the 
field man had intended them to say. Is that your interpretation of 

Fritz: No, these were not field men; they were office men. One in particu 
lar was on the Washington staff. Most of that report was prepared 
right in Washington at least, assembled and one of the authors 
was very unhappy over the fact that what he wrote was changed con- 
si derab ly . 

Maunder: Do you remember the name of that author, the man who was unhappy 
about the change? 

Fritz: I don t want to mention his name right now. He s no longer in the 
Forest Service and he s still living. I don t want to involve him. 

Maunder: Well, you went from Montana to Idaho and Arizona. Can you tell 
us something about that experience? 

Fritz: The field work on this lumber industry study was completed in a 

few months and then I was transferred to the Coeur d Alene National 
Forest at Coeur d Alene, Idaho. The supervisor of that forest was 
Meyer H. Wolff, a Yale forestry graduate, 1909, and a native of 
Russia, but educated in New York City and Connecticut. In the 
office also was R. C. Eggelston, a Yale 1910 forestry graduate. 
Later on there arrived Charles K. McHarg, also a Yale forester, 
1913, and since I was 1914, we had a nice age distribution and four 
Yale men on the same forest. This didn t sit very well with some 
of the young foresters from other schools, but I don t think there 
was any real resentment. We got along very well. 

The supervisor, M. H. Wolff, was Jewish, and some men didn t take 
very kindly to him, especially some of the rangers, but he and I 
got along famously. When I was transferred a year later from his 
forest to Arizona, we parted as very good friends and kept up a 
correspondence for all the years until his death. He was typical 
of the early foresters. He was very zealous; he saw to it that the 
Forest Service got all the breaks in his dealings with others; and 
he was very close in spending money on the ranger districts but he 
gave all of us considerable leeway to carry on our work without 
I nterruption. 

Some men were constantly at loggerheads with him, but I never had 
any difficulty with him. In fact, I enjoyed working with him. For 


Fritz: example, it was the first year that the Forest Service was to have 
a man on each forest detailed to specialize in fire protection, so 
I was to be the fire chief of the forest, in effect. I was hope 
lessly incompetent for that job. coming from the East as a city 
boy and only recently graduated in forestry, whereas the local 
rangers, all of them old-timer woodsmen, very competent and very 
experienced, knew more about fire fighting and fire protection than 
I would learn in ten years. They knew how to get around, they knew 
the timber, and they were very clever in their personal relations. 

Maunder: These were all men recruited right from the neighborhood? 

Fritz: That s right, yes. Most of them started in the Lake States pine 

forests. The Inland Empire, being a pine region, attracted a large 
number of loggers and lumber people and others, woodsmen, from the 
Lake States. Incidentally, when it was said that the pine forests 
of the Lake States would soon give out, some people moved to Idaho 
to take up a forest "homestead." 

Maunder: What would you have to say about the early efforts to fight and con 
trol fire in the Idaho area, the Inland Empire ? 

Fritz: It was a tough job, and even though the rangers knew their way 

around, they were not able to cope with some of the fires because 
the only equipment we had were hand tools shovels, mattocks and 
rakes. Trailing a fire was all hand work and we never had enough 
manpower. So even though the rangers were good woodsmen, they 
didn t find fire fighting in that forest type too easy. 

But fortunately for me as a newcomer, the year 1915 was a very 
easy fire year. We had just one fire of any consequence and that 
was on Big Creek. It was rather important because Big Creek con 
tained some green white pine timber of considerable value. Most 
of the Coeur d Alene Forest was burned over in the great 1910 
fires. You know as much about the 1910 fires as I do. They have 
been written up a number of times. The Coeur d Alene Forest took 
an awful beating. 

Maunder: Well, what about this fire you dealt with in 1915? What was the 
extent of the fire and what was your role in the fighting of it? 

Fritz: What do you want a sort of blow-by-blow account? 
Maunder: That s right. 

Fritz: Well, it happens that I was on Downey Peak lookout station, on a 
lookout inspection trip to see how the lookout was operating and 
what his equipment was like, what was needed, and so on. While on 
that mountain, I saw a thunder storm come up, what we called a dry 
storm. We could see it coming; those storms always carried con 
siderable lightning. The lookout tower was a wooden structure only 
about fifteen feet high, and I thought that here was a good oppor 
tunity to see how the lookout man works when there was a lightning 


Fritz: storm brewing. I saw plenty! As soon as the storm approached 

the lookout point and lightning began to strike close by, he lit 
out for his cabin down near a spring on the slope of the mountain. 
Knowing altogether too little about the playfulness of lightning, 
I stayed on the tower and recorded iwenty-two or twenty-three 
strikes, several of which smoked up but then died down. One, how 
ever, remained large and was actually growing. 

While each one was reported, no one could do anything about them 
because there wasn t enough manpower. The ranger would merely 
say, "Well, keep your eye on it," which I did. But the one fire 
at the head of Big Creek was booming up, and I called Meyer Wolff, 
the supervisor, on the field telephone. He was elsewhere in the 
woods, and I told him that the fire seemed to be mostly outside 
of our forest but on the Cabinet National Forest side, which was 
the Montana side. 

He instructed me to go to the fire myself and represent the Coeur 
d Alene Forest interests. This was the next morning, and I started 
off about five o clock in the morning. I couldn t walk in a straight 
line to the fire because of the terrain, and I figured I could make 
better time by staying on the trails, which meant going back down 
off Downey Peak in the opposite direction to the North Fork of the 
Coeur d Alene River and then down to the mouth of Big Creek and then 
up Big Creek. It was about ten o clock or later that night that I 
arrived at the fire. 

Maunder: How many miles had you walked? 

Fritz: Oh, possibly twenty. There was a trail but not too good. When I ar 
rived at the fire, which was near the top of the divide, I found a 
Montana ranger in charge doing a good job and I felt that things 
were going all right. When I had a chance, I made whatever report 
could be made over the temporary telephone system we established 
with wires stretched out over the brush. 

That same evening the ranger asked if I would go down to Big Creek 
and head off and direct a pack train which was expected to come in 
from the Coeur d Alene side and give it directions. When I left, 
some of the men who had been on day duty for a number of hours were 
ordered to sleep, and as they always did and still do, they pitched 
their beds right on the ground. 

I trailed off the mountain in the dark down to the creek and awaited 
the arrival of the pack train. I waited a long time and I was very 
tired from the long hike, so I decided to lie down and rest and I 
fell asleep. Very soon the pounding of the hoofs of many horses 
woke me up and a fire guard came in with his pack train the one 
I d been waiting for. I had a warming fire going so he was attracted 
by it. 

He was pretty angry. He had had bad luck on the trai I. One of his 


Fritz: animals stepped off the trail and rolled off the slope into the 
creek and broke a leg and he had to shoot it. He also fired his 
pistol for help (we had pistol shot signals) but I didn t hear 
them the creek was making too much noise. The animal that went 
off the trail, incidentally, was loaded with prunes and beans, so 
some men probably were happy over that, and others probably would 
have preferred to have the beans to what they actually got. 

I prepared something hot for the packer, and while he was eating, 
there was a commotion in the woods and flickering lights, very 
small lights, so I rushed out into the woods and followed the trail 
for some distance when I met a number of fire fighters coming out 
of the woods with matches and candles and with quite a scare on 
their faces. They yelled out, "Run for your life, young fellow. 
The fire s following us." 

I couldn t see how that could be possible so I found a tree with 
some low branches and climbed up as high as I could to get a better 
view of the slope. It was all black as night, so I decided that 
they were panicked by some very local disturbance, which proved to 
be the case, as I found out when I went to the top of the mountain 
with the packer a few minutes later. The fire apparently crept 
along on the ground and set fire to some low-hanging branches of a 
spruce tree. The spruce flamed up very quickly and as quickly went 
out. But the sleeping fire fighters were awakened, and when the 
sky was lighted up by several of these torches, they didn t stop 
to make any inquiries. Some ran down off the Montana slope, and 
some came down on the Idaho side. 

One of them later sued, or threatened to sue, the Forest Service 
for a rupture which he claimed to have obtained on the fire. I 
remember the man real well. He was a first-class loafer and was 
one of the men we picked up along the railroad to fight fires. 
While he was found to have a rupture, it was an old one which he 
just figured he could use to get some money from the government. 

After the fire a day or so later, when I went back to the railroad 
near Wallace, I met dear old ranger Ed Pulaski. He had come up on 
a speeder, or "hand car." By that time, some of the men were about 
to hold me up because I refused to pay them for the time they were 
asleep. Ranger Pulaski was an old-timer, a man who knew the char 
acteristics of local people and loggers and drifters, and he sug 
gested I add a few hours to the hours of actual work to give them 
some compensation for going and coming, but I still declined to 
pay them for the time they had been in bed. Anyway, Pulaski in his 
quiet knowledgeable way probably prevented me from taking quite a 
beating from these ex-fire fighters. Pulaski really deserves some 
comment at this point. 

Maunder: He was a hero of the 1910 fires? 

Fritz: Yes, he was a real hero of the 1910 fires and a modest man. He is 




credited with having saved the lives of a 
fighters who, when they were overtaken by 
ordered into a prospect tunnel mine tunnel with 
guard at the entrance. 

dozen or more fire 

a rush of flames, were 

Pulaski standing 

That s all very well documented. 

There s no 
told him I 

Yes, that s all well documented. 

I asked Pulaski about it once and 

to know some of the story, and he says, "Well 

many times, every time I hear it, 

I d better let you pick it up 

use going into that, 
was new and would like 
it s been told so 

it has gotten bigger, so maybe 
from somewhere else." 

I learned a great deal from Ed Pulaski. He was said to have been 
a descendant of the famous Revolutionary War Pulaski. I had a num 
ber of experiences with Ed Pulaski which added to my respect for 
these old-timers who spent so much of their lives in the woods and 
knew more about the woods and the behavior of forest growth than 
we young fellows fresh from school. Although they perhaps didn t 
know some of the basic principles, they did know some of the more 
Important things when it came to managing a forest. These old-timers 
were a very honest, hard-working lot. 

Among these old-timers were fellows like Gus Yager, and then there 
was Jack Winnington. He was more of a miner than a woodsman, how 
ever. And Phil Neff. They were very interesting men. They were 
very clever in handling the young technical personnel from the 
eastern forestry schools. 

Maunder: Are these stories part of the written literature? 

Fritz: Some. Here s one, for example. Ranger Neff was in charge of the 
Nelson Ranger Station. It was the finest house in the forest, a 
two-or three-story building, and when I arrived there, I inquired 
how come he has such a fine home when the other rangers do not. 
Then I found out that he had been a contractor and builder, and 
being a type of woodsman who knew how to "work the angles," and 
knowing that he was allowed only $650 for putting up the ranger 
station, he found ways to cut corners or to juggle labor so that 
he was able to build himself a very fine home. It was a home which 
this year would cost him $20,000 to build. At that time possibly 
$3,500 could have built it, but on the books it was only $650. He 
did it by taking some of the fire guards when they were not needed 
on fire fighting, and he would go out and collect stones or saw 
lumber and fit it and erect it and so on. 

Another time was my first trip to Nelson Ranger Station with a 
party which included Supervisor Wolff, the timber sale man, Calvin 
A. Dahlgren, an entomologist, Jim Evenden, Gus Yager and several 
others. We all rode out on a gas speeder from the end of the main 
line of the railroad, and apparently without too much warning to 
Phil Neff s wife for lunch. Of course, we couldn t carry lunches 


Fritz: and there were no lunch rooms. It was the custom In those days to 

have the ranger or his wife prepare the meals and bed us down. Neff 
had four or five children, and his wife was a very courageous and 
competent woman. She had very Ittle time to prepare lunch and 
other meals for this big party. She had expected a smaller group. 
Fortunately, one of the station men shot a good brace of grouse the 
day before. It was my first taste of the deliciously meaty blue 

We were allowed to pay fifty cents, or was it thirty-five, per meal 
to a ranger s wife when she prepared our meals. It was precious 
little for the hard work, and I developed a wholesome respect for 
the wife of the ranger because of the work they were expected to do 
to help out their husbands without any additional compensation ex 
cept for meals. They would have to handle the telephone calls while 
the ranger was away and even rustle labor and get equipment ready 
to ship out to them by pack train in emergencies. For none of this 
did they receive any compensation at that time. I mention this 
because 1 want to record the sizable contribution of ranger wives. 

Another incident at the same ranger station: On one visit there was 
some delay in getting me off by horse to the top of Grizzly Peak 
from which I was to make a panoramic map, the first one to have 
been made in the West. To use the time, I took pictures of trees 
and of the ranger station in general. In the background of one 
picture was a partially completed structure which was part of the 
general scene. 

Some weeks later when I returned to Coeur d Alene and the supervisor, 
knowing I had photographs, asked to see them, he came rushing to my 
desk and said, "What s this building in the background in this pic 
ture of the Nelson Ranger Station?" I answered that I was told 
that it was to be a new barn. The new barn had been completed only 
up as far as the eaves, so Wolff, the supervisor, called in Gus 
Yager, another ranger who was headquartered in Coeur d Alene but 
who had been helping Neff in building some of the structures. 

Wolff asked Yager, "What is this building in the background?" Yager, 
straight-faced, told him that was the new barn. Wolff said, "Well, 
I thought I allowed only enough money to put up the foundation." 
Yager said, "That s right. All we ve got there is the foundation." 

Wolff caught on right away and saw that the rangers had stretched 
it a point, so he asked Yager, "How high is the foundation of a barn?" 
And Yager said, "Well, sometimes a foundation goes up to the eaves, 
just enough to hold up the roof." So Neff and Yager, by finagling 
equipment and labor and time and putting in unquestionably a lot of 
overtime, were able to put up the sldewalls on top of the completed 
foundation and got by by calling it the "foundation." The next year 
they were to get a little more money to put on the roof. 

I mention that incident because it shows how difficult it was to 
get quarters and money for buildings and how little the rangers had 


Fritz: to work on. From my own observation, the rangers got the small 

end of the stick when It came to providing the means for carrying 
on their work. Yet they were the ones who did the field work. 

Fry: The U.S.F.S. had much trouble with fraudulent homesteading on the 
Coeur d Alene. Did you see any of this? 

Fritz: Yes, just one really small thing, but to me it was very big at the 
moment: to face a gun is not a pleasant experience. I met a man 
on horseback armed with a shotgun. I was afoot and had just exited 
from a side trail when he sighted me. It suddenly dawned on me that 
he was one of the last homesteaders to defy the government and he 
threatened to shoot any trespasser. It ties in with the application 
of the Homestead Act to lands that are not truly of agricultural 
character and should have been kept In a timber classification. 

The northern Idaho country was well covered with valuable western 
white pines. A number of people moved out from the white pine 
region of the Lake States to the West to take up some of this land. 
A man might take up 160 acres and his girl friend would pick up 
another 160 acres. They would get married and have 320. The cost 
was small $2.50 an acre which would make 320 acres of prime tim 
ber land cost only $800. Most of the land was mountainous and not 
suited for farming. Lumber companies were willing to pay anywhere 
from ten to twenty thousand dollars for It, so If one could get 
patent he would sell Immediately to a lumber operator. 

When the Forest Service was organized, it examined a lot of these 
claims which were still in the hands of the settlers. For itself, 
it claimed that they were fraudulent, that the land was impossible 
to farm. It was fraudulent in the sense that it could not be farmed, 
but it was quite legal for homesteaders to take it up. 

Some of the farmers fought it. To use the term, they were embattled 
farmers. They were never organized, though. They gave the Forest 
Service and all the men in it a bad time. I did not think It was 
quite fair to these farmers. They were practically invited out there 
to take up the 160-acre claim, and then they were kicked off. 

Well, I was walking along a trail with my little pack and I saw a 
smaller trail turn off to the right. It was away from the Coeur 
d Alene River. I just wondered where the trail went because I was 
trying to get thoroughly acquainted with the forest. I had every 
map imaginable and available with me. 1 was making notes on these 
maps to bring them up to date. I was adding trails that were not 
marked on the map because I was being trained to be a fire chief of 
that forest some day. 

I got to the end of this trail, which went only about 150 feet. It 

stopped at a spring and there was food in the spring to keep It cool. 

I did not touch anything. I came right out again. I knew that there 
was a homestead close by, and I thought, "Well, this settler is 


Fritz: taking advantage of the spring," which was very much his right and 
the smart thing to do. 

When 1 came out to the main trpil, here was a man on horseback 
with his gun across his lap pointed right at me. With very few 
words he asked me, "What are you doing in there?" I told him 
that I was wondering where this trail was headed and that I dis 
covered the end at the spring, so I came out again. 

Then he told me in no uncertain terms, "I don t want any Forest 
Service men on my land." I had a badge, of course, so I was easily 
identified. That badge could get you into a lot of trouble. It 
carries a lot of authority with It, but .... 

Fry: But at that point your authority was pretty far away. 

Fritz: Yes. I had no gun, probably would not have used it if I did have 
one. He told me that he did not want any Forest Service men on 
his land, and he said, "This is my land!" Actually, the Forest 
Service claimed it. I told him that I was on my way to some ranger 
station, went on my way, and that was all there was to it. It was 
a personal experience In how the thing worked. Every forester in 
those days had something like that and some had much worse experi 

Actually, it was not wholly fair. The Homestead Law practically 
invited f raudulent ^"settl i ng." This law was not adapted to the 
western mountain country because of its failure to regard terrain 
and other factors. The man I met on the trail claimed his right 
under the Homestead Law before the so-called "June llth" forest 
homestead law was passed. 

This little experience reminded me of my student days when I was in 
a camp in Mississippi, where some of the backwoods farmers were very 
suspicious of strangers. Shortly before we set up our camp, a far 
mer shot and killed an agricultural agent who was dipping the 
scrawny cattle to rid the animals of ticks. The farmers feared 
dipping would "hex" the cattle. So they were not going to have 
their cattle hexed, ticks or no ticks. 

Maunder: Were you becoming disillusioned in forestry about this time? 

Fritz: No, not on the Coeur d Alene. On the Coeur d Alene I enjoyed 

every minute. Wolff was so friendly, and I got along so well with 
the other men that I was very enthusiastic about the whole setup. 
And of course, Coeur d Alene was a beautiful place for living. I 
thought it would make an excellent university town, and later on 
when I saw the University of Idaho at Moscow, I felt it was regret 
table that the University was not built at Coeur d Alene. 

There was a big lake and beautiful scenery. There was also a boat 
club equipped with two four-oar shells, two pairs and two singles, 
and having rowed at Cornell, I joined the boat club and was soon 


Fritz: rowing in the fours and the pairs. But I never happened to be in 
a boat for the two seasons I rowed that won anything but a heat, 
but it was a lot of fun. 

I also met my future wife there. 

owned a canoe, and after 

practice rowing in the morning before breakfast, and practice row- 

ing between five o clock and dinner, I would 
would go canoeing for the rest of the night. 
a youngster. 

call on her and we 
Quite a workout for 

Maunder: Were you married there? 

Fritz: No. I had no intention of getting married, but you never can tell 
what an infatuation develops into. That came later. 

The work on the Coeur d Alene was extremely interesting. At first 
I was quite disappointed at having been transferred or assigned to 
fire work. Several times I thought about having spent two years 
at Yale to become a forester, with silviculture as my main interest 
at the time, and then to be made into a fire fighter on a national 
forest. It didn t look good. But I soon learned that the protec 
tion branch of the Forest Service was the only real job that the 
Forest Service had. The rest of it was pretty much going around 
in circles and marking time. There was some timber sale work, of 
course, but not very much. 

While I was on the Coeur d Alene I think it was in the fall of 
the year a request came in from the Regional Office to make the 
annual report on some plantations that were set out on the land 
burned in the 1910 fires. Wolff said, "This is your job. As soon 
as you can get out there, you go out and make an examination and 
make the report. I don t think it amounts to a great deal because 
in the past the plantations couldn t be found, and I believe that 
most of them are dead." 

So I looked up the old reports, and sure enough, I found that my 
predecessors had not found some of the plantations and reported 
them as lost. But I had to go out anyway to go through the motions 
of preparing the report. Reports, of course, are very important in 
any government office. 

But I was not prepared for what I found. I actually located the ex 
perimental plantations of various hardwoods hickory, oak, walnut, 
basswood and others. The seedlings were only a foot high or slightly 
more, and although they had no leaves on them, I readily identified 
them; and when I looked up the old reports again, I noticed that all 
of my predecessors had been trained in western forestry schools 
where they didn t have an opportunity to become acquainted with 
the bud characteristics or winter characteristics in general of 
the eastern hardwoods, which were planted experimentally on the 
Coeur d Alene burns. So it was no particular credit to me, but 
with the training I had acquired at Yale from Jim Tourney and Sam 


Fritz: Record on tree identification in the winter condition, I should 

not have missed them anyway. But there were some conifer planta 
tions that were still intact, especially Englemann spruce. They 
were doing pretty well. But In general the plantations weren t 
doing too well. Here and there there were some natural seedlings 
coming up, and they seemed to thrive somewhat better, which gave 
me my first experience in plantations from nursery-grown plants as 
against naturally seeded. 

Well, an interesting thing happened as a result of that report. I 
had a lot of fun writing it and brought in a lot of details that I 
had noticed and observed and felt they were important for someone 
else who might follow me. But somebody in the Washington Office 
apparently thought that here was a si I viculturist that was being 
wasted on fire, so I was properly approached later the following 
spring about a transfer to a forest experiment station in Arizona. 

I thought it was a good opportunity to get into si I vicultural work 
and also to see the forests in an entirely new Region, and so I 
talked it over with Wolff. He kidded me quite a bit for being 
asked to go to desert country, which I thought the country was my 
self. Although I had studied something about the pine forests it 
didn t make much Impression. But anyway he agreed to the transfer 
and wished me we I I . 

Before I left the Coeur d Alene, I prepared a number of memoranda, 
each one on a different item of forest protection. For example, 
one was on lookouts and the design of lookouts and the necessity 
for the type of glass to be used, the obstructions from corners and 
how they could be avoided, and water development, the height of the 
towers to get over the trees, and also the numbering of mile posts 
along trails and numbering these mile posts also on the maps so that 
a lookout man could report a fire apparently on so-and-so canyon 
along so-and-so trail near so-and-so mile post. I don t know if 
this was ever effective on the Coeur d Alene Forest but I learned 
later it was adopted on the Nezperce. 

Maunder: Was this an innovation in the Forest Service at the time? 

Fritz: It was new, at least to me. Whether anybody else had thought of it 
and was responsible for its being adopted on one of the map systems, 
I don t know. 

Maunder: You ve never seen it written up anywhere? 

Fritz: Only in my own memorandum. I also left, I think, a twenty-page or 
more memorandum on the preparation of panoramic lookout maps. A 
copy of that was sent to Bush Osborne, who apparently got the fire- 
finder map idea from the New Hampshire people, and as a result of 
my own memorandum he tried to work a panorama on his own fire-find 
ing map, which was about the same diameter as mine. 

These panoramic maps apparently didn t work out too well. Later 


Fritz: on they used cameras for the same thing, but it developed that the 
lookout men were so experienced in the terrain that they didn t use 
the panorama anyway. By developing a system of trlangu I atlon and 
better pinpointing of lookout rtatlons, the panorama wasn t actually 

That panoramic map method was written up in the TJmberman, and also 
in the American Geographic Magazine, of which IsaVah Bowman was the 
director. Bowman had given a course to the Yale Forestry students. 
(He later became president of Johns Hopkins University. A very 
fine man, very able man.) 

Fort Val ley Experiment Station, Arizona 

Maunder: When did you go to Arizona? 

Fritz: I arrived in Arizona in August, 1916. 

Maunder: What was your new assignment? 

Fritz: My new assignment was as assistant In the experiment station. The 
director was Gus Pearson, G. A. Pearson. I learned to love the 
old fellow. In fact, he wasn t much older than I was. He was of 
the class of 1907 or 08 of Nebraska, when Nebraska had a forestry 
school. Incidentally, Pearson was left at that one station until 
his retirement, and as far as I know, his is the only case where a 
researcher was left at one place long enough to really learn the 
local situation, and Pearson became an authority on ponderosa pine. 
He and I became very good friends and we kept in touch with one 
another until his retirement, and in fact, until his death. If 
his widow is still living, I expect to visit her this coming Feb 
ruary in Tucson. 

The Fort Valley Experiment Station was about nine miles north of 
Flagstaff at an elevation of about 7,250 feet, and Flagstaff I be 
lieve was about 6,900. Above us loomed the San Francisco peaks, 
one peak of which was 12,611 feet. It was really a beautiful coun 
try and I loved it at once. It was like being stationed in a huge 
park, but the fact that it looked like a park made it appear to me 
that it was no place for forestry. 

However, I had to change my mind on that because it was a very 
good place to learn silviculture, primarily because the site fac 
tors were not too good. The only good feature was that they had 
some rains in the summertime, a total of about twenty-two or twenty- 
three inches of precipitation for the entire year. But It was more 
of a park-like stand of ponderosa pine up to about 7,500 or 8,000 
feet. There the type changed to Douglas fir mixture, and then 
higher up to spruce and white fir. The spruce forest was a very 
dense dark one and I always enjoyed going up to it. We found that 


Fritz: at about ten thousand feet. The timber line was about eleven 
thousand feet. 

It was a very interesting place for one to be stationed, especially 
one who, like myself, wanted to eke out some more training or know 
ledge of how vegetation develops. I recall going into the botany 
of the region and there was one little plant known by the generic 
name of Th I asp i a. The specific name was taken from the name of a 
botanist and begins with "f." I can t think of it at the moment. 
It sounds like "ferend." Anyway, I observed the plant at the sta 
tion, and then decided that as long as I had to climb the mountain 
once a week anyway, I would keep a record of the blooming of this 
plant at different elevations over this altitudinal range. But 
that was the following spring, so I m a little ahead of my story. 

When I arrived in Flagstaff, I found Pearson very happy to have 
some help. Apparently my predecessor had been away several months 
before I was assigned. My predecessor was Clarence Korstian who 
later became a research station director himself, and still later, 
Dean of Forestry at Duke University. 

The work at the station was largely working up data for the few 
years past of measurements of sample plots. Of course, we had a 
few sample plots to measure ourselves, but they were behind in 
working up the data, solely because of inadequate help, and ! could 
see that my entire winter would be spent in the office working up 
this data. 

Pearson was a very helpful man; he recognized the fact that his 
assistants were dropping into something brand new and needed help. 
Whenever we were out on trips by auto or afoot or on horseback, 
he never missed a chance to point out something which had some sig 
nificance in learning the silviculture or the si Ivies or the botany 
of the region. 

We lived in very nice little cottages. They were pretty thin-walled 
and not too windtlght but they were heated by hot water from the 
greenhouse. Having had some experience in pipe-fitting, I was able 
to change the piping in my own house so that the radiators were in 
better corners for heat distribution. I also had a chance to do some 
pipe-fitting for water lines and insulation and electric light systems 
and so on, and was very happy to be able to put into use some of my 
early training in engineering. 

I had to share the cottage with another assistant, Lenthall Wyman, 
who later became a professor of forestry at North Carolina State 
University. We were together most of the winter. Unfortunately, 
in about February or March, he was transferred and thereafter, I 
had to make the field trips alone, although we were ordered never 
to go out alone on the snow. 

Incidentally I m a little ahead there when the winter approached, 


Fritz: Pearson had received authority to make a study of climatic condi 
tions at various elevations. We started at an elevation of about 
five thousand feet, somewhere on the desert or in the area of juni 
per and pinion pine, and gradually worked up to about 10,500 feet. 
I had to build the stations at 8,500 and 10,500. The others had 
already been built. And it was my job then for the time during the 
winter and my entire stay at the station to visit these weather 
stations once every week to change the sheets on the recording 
machines, to take note of the maximum temperatures and so on, to 
refill the evaporation pans and whatnot. 

It was a very interesting assignment and very illuminating. When 
Pearson wrote his final report on that study, I felt quite happy 
over the fact that he mentioned me as well as the other assistants 
for the help we gave him. It was a pretty good demonstration of 
personnel management: Pearson gave everybody credit whenever he 
received help, no matter how slight it was. It was quite in con 
trast to an article I had written for the Timberman magazine on 
the round panoramic lookout map idea which I brought to Idaho from 
New Hampshire. When the article actually appeared in the Timberman 
magazine being a good soldier, I submitted it through the Regional 
Office my name was cut off and the name of the Regional Forester 
was put on, by some subordinate, no doubt. 

Maunder: Who was the Regional Forester there? 

Fritz: That was F. A. Si Icox, a very fine man. Also a Yale forester. He 
was a very fine man indeed. He later quit the Forest Service for 
some years. He had a sort of a sociological streak and he worked 
for the typographers union in New York City, and then later, being 
a friend of Rex Tugwel I during the New Deal days, he was returned 
to the Forest Service as Chief Forester. If I think of it, I ll 
make some comments about him a little later, which I think will 
cast some light on the New Deal days. 

Work at Flagstaff, as I said, was interesting and also enjoyable. 
During Christmas week, the snows came. Of course, it was quite 
cold. At six o clock in the morning sometimes in the winter, the 
temperature dropped below zero, and the crust on the snow was so 
thick that we could walk on it without snowshoes until about ten 
o clock. The temperature rise from six o clock to about ten o clock 
was really phenomenal. I don t remember the exact figures but while 
at six o clock in the morning, water would freeze very quickly in 
pans, by about ten o clock we could sit out on the snow in our 
shirt sleeves. 

It was an ideal climate. During the day in the winter, it was not 
only bearable but pleasant, while in the summertime, the temperature 
rarely rose above eighty-five degrees, and it was never humid. It 
was an ideal climate. And having been reported to have had a touch 
of tuberculosis as a young man, I felt that if the TB should ever 
return, I would make the Flagstaff area my permanent home, but that 
contingency never developed. 







We spent the winter in the office working up the data. Ordinarily 
I would have gotten pretty tired and fed up working up somebody 
else s data, but the summation of every column gave enough informa 
tion which for comparative purposes was illuminating; and Pearson 
was on hand a big part of the time, until some time In January any 
way, to help me interpret the data. 

Of course, we had other duties around the Station. Somebody had to 
go out about five o clock and turn off all the water from the ele 
vated water tanks so they didn t freeze overnight, and we had to 
build a fire in the tankhouse so the tank itself didn t freeze up. 
We had other duties like that and of course, Pearson had a cow, a 
personal cow, which he had to milk. 

That leads me to say something about the management of experiment 
stations in those days. Altogether too much time of the technical 
personnel had to be devoted to typing letters and ordinary main 
tenance work. I recall doing a lot of mechanical work myself 
around the grounds, pipe-fitting, carpentry work, and so on. Even 
tually, Pearson got a clerk who wasn t very good but nevertheless, 
he was a clerk and he kept the accounts. In fact, Pearson always 
had a clerk, I believe, to take care of the accounts. But we young 
fellows still had a little to do. 

Was this just merely a matter of lack of budget? 
That s right. In other words, inadequate personnel. 

In other words, they were trying to get the technical personnel to 
double in brass and so cut down the overhead? 

Yes. We didn t even watch the clock. We worked as long as we could 
keep our eyes open sometimes to get the job done. On that Station, 
we had a pump pumping water from a well to the tankhouse, and that 
had to be operated. Pearson looked after that himself until some 
time later when he was able for the first time to get a range helper 
who was a sort of maintenance and operations man around the Station. 

We also had a greenhouse, and the heating of the greenhouse was . 
always a problem. And starting fires in the tankhouse, and various 
jobs of that kind, took a lot of time. But they were probably a 
good thing too because it took the curse off of sitting at the desk 
for too many hours at a run just poring over figures. 

When this ranger helper arrived, he turned out to be a man by the 
name of Porcher. I think his first name was Frank. He was a native 
of South Carolina, apparently from an old, old family, and he was a 
very bad TB case. His wife had been a nurse and married him to look 
after him. They were very much attached to one another. 

He was transferred to the Experiment Station from somewhere in 
California. We did not know that he was tubercular until he tried 





to do some of the work. He tried valiantly but he couldn t make 
It. From my office window, I would sometimes see him walk up a 
slope from the pump house to the upper level gasping for air, and 
when Pearson and I found out tht he was tubercular, we were pretty 
sore at the smart cookie In California who transferred this man, 
knowing what kind of work he was to do. 

Didn t they have physical examinations for personnel? 

Well, this man was already in the Forest Service, and possibly if he 
had tuberculosis when he was employed, it wasn t detected. 

Didn t they have periodic re-examinations? 

Not that I remember. 

What provisions were made for hospitalizing men in the Forest Service? 

None whatever. Later on, I had to do Porcher s work and my own. 

Pearson had been ordered to a detail in Washington, D.C., and was 
to be away about three months It turned out to be nearly four 
months and he left me in charge. There wasn t much responsibility 
attached to It, except to continue the work we had started, the com 
putations, and looking after the Station. 

I had one of those experiences I i ke a lot of young men must have 
had in the early days in the Forest Service when we had to double 
in brass. The cow, of course, introduced some problems. Being a 
city-bred boy, 1 didn t know which end of the cow gave the milk, 
and I had assiduously stayed away from the milking job when we 
moved to the country. Porcher, the ranger, had to do the milking 
at the Station, and for doing It he got some of the milk. (I don t 
remember whether Mrs. Pearson remained at the Station at this time 
or moved to Flagstaff with their two children. She was the daugh 
ter of a local Judge and a very fine lady.) 

When I arrived at the Station, the clerk, who was not too bright 
"anyway, came rushTng~ouT~ancf s a fdTrT broken English, "My God, Fritz, 
the cow has just had a calf. What I I I do?" And I said, "Where is 
the cow?" He said, "I got her in the stable." "Where is the calf?" 
"The calf is in the stall next to the cow." 

"Where did the cow have the calf?" He said, "Way down in the meadow. 
She didn t come in at the regular time, so I looked around and when 
I got down to the field, I found she had a calf. So I drove her and 
the calf In." 

Of course, when Pearson left for Washington, he had told me that the 
cow was to have a calf on a certain day in April, but he expected to 
be back. Actually, his detail in Washington was extended and he 
didn t get back until late in April. So there was I with a sick 
cow and a young calf on my hands, and I d never had that kind of 


Fritz: an experience before. But I knew that the cow was a mammal and 

that a calf would therefore suckle from Its own bag. I found out 
the clerk knew less about it than I did he had separated the calf 
from the cow and put the calf in another stall with a bale of hay. 
I asked him what the hay was for, aiid he said, "Well, the calf has 
to eat, doesn t it?" 


I thought, "Hell s bells, I didn t eat meat when J_ was born, and 
I had to be fed on a bottle, so the calf must be in the same boat." 
So 1 put the calf with the mother, and although the cow was a big 
animal and had very large teats, she kicked that calf clear out of 
the stable because her teats had been very badly chapped. This 
was in the cold winter and April was still cold. (April 15th, we 
had thirty inches of snow, and on Decoration Day, I planted trees 
in a light snowstorm.) 

I brought the cow out of the barn where I could get at her and 
started to work to find out how I could get some milk out of her. 
Her udder was tight as a drum, and I thought, "That can t be right." 
The cow was as hot as a firecracker all over and breathing heavily, 
so I thought she might be sick. She wouldn t let the calf anywhere 
near, so I started to try to milk her. Knowing nothing about it, 
she promptly heaved me out of the stable too with a quick push. 

I thought, "Well, she s probably in pain. The teats are pretty 
badly chapped," so I got some lard and rubbed it over her teats, 
and after a little while they were quite soft and then she didn t 
kick up so much when I touched her. But to get some milk out was 
a different story. 

Finally, I figured out there must be valves inside just like there 
would be in any pump system, so I figured out where the valves ought 
to be and pretty soon I had a stream of milk going and pretty well 
filled a pail. Then I let the calf go in with the cow and the mother 
accepted the ca I f . 

There s a little part of humor to that. When Pearson got back, he 
had quite a laugh over this city boy who had this midwifery thrust 
upon him, but I asked him, "How is the cow? Do you think she ll 
pull through?" And he said, "You did everything right except that 
I wanted the calf weaned early." 

I said, "How in the devil do you do that?" He showed me how one 
puts his finger in the pail and crooks the finger and lets part of 
it stick out so that the calf grabs the finger and thinks it s a 
teat and gradually he gets in the habit of drinking out of a pail. 
Well, that s something else I learned. Anyway, that was just one 
of the examples of some of the details that one had to work out 
for himself in those days, especially at the Stations. 


Maunder: Was this tubercular case allowed to go on milking the cow? He 
surely knew what his trouble was, didn t he? 

fritz: He certainly did. He told us himself, 

Maunder: Wasn t that running a great risk, exposing the rest of the people 
on the Station? 

Fritz: Yes, it was, but we didn t pay so much attention to those things 
in those days. In fact, we didn t know so much about them as we 
do now. But it was very unfair on the part of whoever it was in 
the Forest Service to transfer the man to anything but very light 
duty. It was very we I I known what the work would be. 

It gave me my first indication of what I still think of as hypoc 
risy on the part of people who claim to be interested in the country 
and also in other people. It s true of the churches; it s true of 
the universities; it s true of business; it s true of public ser 
vice. But it hit me rather hard because by going to the Forestry 
School at New Haven, I at least for a while had taken up a little 
different viewpoint on work. 

Maunder: You were imbued with a high degree of Idealism? 

Fritz: Yes, and I got to feeling that maybe only industry is selfish, a 
thing apart from other people, and that the business people have 
no Interest in the country at all. I acquired that after I started 
studying forestry; certainly, I didn t have it as an engineer. It 
was some few years after that that I learned my mistake. 

There were several instances that came to my attention at Fort 
Valley that made me feel that the Forest Service is not the altru 
istic organization which I had thought it was. 

Maunder: What were some of these other experiences? 

Fritz: it was like anywhere else, dog-eat-dog and each one for himself. When 
the summer came, we had a succession of visitors from Washington who 
came out on so-called inspection trips, and I can t figure out to 
this day what good they accomplished, but they carried something 
away for themselves and left very little. Raphael Zon was one of 
the visitors. Sam Dana was another. Sam Dana, however, was a 
serious man, and we really got quite a bit out of the discussions 
we had with him. 

Maunder: He made some real contribution to the life and experience of the 
Station by his visit? 

Fritz: Yes, he did. Zon made no contribution. He was critical all the 

Then, of course, there was H. H. Chapman. He was at that time on 
leave from the Yale Forest School and was the assistant district 


Fritz: forester In charge of silviculture. He was out visiting the Sta 
tion, and having only recently graduated from the school myself, 
we had some long conversations. Chapman revealed some facets of 
himself which I had only suspec+ed before. During the entire time 
he was at the Station, I would say ne contributed nothing whatso 
ever to the progress of the work, but he kept up a running comment 
about how things were going wrong in the Regional Office and how he 
was going to correct them. 

We took him up to the weather station on the San Francisco Mountains, 
and while we were there he wanted to go clear to the top, so I es 
corted him clear to the peak. We sat up there under the lee of the 
peak overlooking the Painted Desert, and he continued his criticism 
of how the Forest Service is run and how he is trying to cure it, 
and possibly by his frankness he led me into saying some things 
that I possibly shouldn t have said about the way a ranger had 
been transferred who was useless to us. 

I also discussed another instance which I haven t mentioned before. 
It was thought when I was transferred to Fort Valley that I would 
be promoted to a forest examiner from the rating of forest assis 
tant and given, I believe, a two-or three-hundred dollar raise. The 
amount of money I got in those days didn t make much difference to 
me because I had enough to live on and was not married and figured 
that everything that I was doing for the first four or five years 
would be for experience anyway, so I wasn t put out by it. 

But when Chapman came, he showed me a letter which had been received 
from the Washington Office In which the statement appeared, "If 
Fritz does not make too much complaint about not being promoted 
to forest examiner, don t let him have it," or words to that ef 
fect. That was an improper thing for Chapman to do, and it made me 
pretty sore that the Forest Service should have such an attitude 
toward its own employees when publicly it was preaching such high 
ideals in public service. 

Maunder: Who had signed this letter, your superior there at Flagstaff? 

Fritz: No. Without my knowing it, Pearson was trying to get me the pro 
motion and so was someone at the Regional Office in Albuquerque, 
but in Washington, it was vetoed. 

Maunder: Was Chapman breaching discipline by showing you this letter? 

Fritz: I didn t think it was proper. Although I was glad to see it, I 
thought It was an Improper thing for a man in Chapman s position 
to do. 

Maunder: Why do you suppose he showed you this, to Induce you to make 

Fritz: No, I don t think so. Chapman has always been even more so In 


Fritz: later years one who loved to have something to criticize somebody 
else on. He would criticize his own grandmother if she were alive. 
And he certainly enjoyed criticizing people in his own office, on 
his own staff at the Yale Forest School. He was very unfair In 
his criticism, and I think oftentlcos criticized without knowing 
a 1 1 the facts. 

Maunder: How do you account for the fact that he rose to positions of im 
portance which depended in part on persona! popularity in elections 
and things of that sort? 

Fritz: He had a lot of drive, a lot of energy, and he forced himself into 
a lot of situations. He could easily work up any problem into an 
issue in no time, and I think a lot of men, in the Forest Service 
at least, were afraid of him while the others thought that he was 
just a character to be enjoyed. I had a very unfortunate experience 
with him later on, several in fact, in the I930 s and thereafter, 
which made me break with him that is, on a friendly basis. 

Maunder: What were these? 

Fritz: If you want them at all, I ll come to them later. 

Maunder: All right, although they might hold together better at this stage 
of the Interview than In a purely chronological account. 

Fritz: Chronologically they would come later, but I don t want to mention 
that unless you think it would be of interest. 



Fritz: While I was at Fort Valley, the Unhed States entered the First 
World War. I think It was April 6, 1917. It was when Pearson 
was away In Washington and had left me in charge. 

The day after war was declared, or two days later, it was my un 
pleasant duty to take the ranger and his wife to Flagstaff and put 
them on the train; his illness had become so that he couldn t work. 
His wife was quite incensed over the treatment he had gotten by 
being transferred to a Station where he had heavy work to perform 
whereas he should have had light duty, and she took it out on the 
Station personnel. On the way to the station at Flagstaff, nine 
miles, I had to submit to a running comment as to what a bad deal 
her husband got, but I had to keep my mouth shut more or less be 
cause it was none of my business and I wasn t responsible for any 
thing there anyway. In fact, I had tried to make his job lighter 
by doing some of the work for him. 

While in Flagstaff on that trip, I called on John D. Guthrle who 
was supervisor of the Coconlno National Forest, having heard that 
he was making up a company of foresters to go into service to get 
out lumber and wood for the armed forces In France. So I told 
Guthrle that I would be glad to join his outfit If and when it was 
official ly set upi 

Another man on that forest who was on Guthrie s staff was E. T. F. 
Wohlenberg, who later became quite a figure. He was to be given a 
lieutenancy, I believe, and all the officer assignments had al 
ready been doled out, so I was made a sergeant. 

When I got back to the Station, I was thinking about it, and I 
thought how foolish to get into a unit which is going to fight the 
war with an axe and a saw, when my idea of fighting a war was with 
something that had a little more kick to it. So I telephoned Guth- 
rie and told him I was going to withdraw my agreement with him to 
go into his outfit it wasn t an enlistment anyway and that I was 
going to try to get into the artillery. 

Maunder: What did you finally do In regard to World War I? 

Fritz: I put in an application right away for military training camp. The 
Arizona and New Mexico boys were to have been sent to the Presidio 
in San Francisco. According to the newspapers, something happened 
that left the boys from Arizona and New Mexico completely out of 
the first camp through some error, I believe; but we all received 
word that we would be given the first chance at the second officers 
training camp which was to be held at Fort Leon Springs in Texas, 
and I made that all right. 

When I arrived, I found In the artillery with me was Stanley Wilson, 




one of my Yale classmates. We were in the same battery or adjoin 
ing batteries throughout the training camp, and I came out of that 
with a first lieutenancy with the artillery. I was given two weeks 
leave with the rest of the graduates and went to Baltimore. I tele 
graphed my flance eln Coeur d Alene to meet me In Baltimore, and we 
were married there. 

What was your fiancee s name? 

She was Esther Phillips. She was one of the clerks in the office 
in the Forest Service in Coeur d Alene. Her brother, by the way, 
is Roy Phillips, one of the heroes in the 1910 fires. He had an 

experience similar to Pulaski s, and 
several different forests. He s now 
Ari zona. 

later he became supervisor of 
retired and living in Phoenix, 

Maunder: Was your unit sent overseas after you got married? 

Fritz: While I was in Baltimore on leave, as I said, I got married and 
promptly went back to San Antonio to take up duties as a newly 
commissioned officer, but on arrival, I found that my name was 
posted with about five hundred others who were transferred to the 
newly organized air service the Air Arm of the Signal Corps, as 
It was called in those days. I didn t like it at all, but we were 
told that it meant an early shipment to France, and that took off 
some of the curse because we learned that the others would be in 
the States possibly for six months more, trai n ing troops. 

The artillerymen were all given commands of squadrons because the 
artillery outranked the infantry. So when I reported at Kelly 
Field, I found my squadron which was then called the 118th, and 
later became known as the 639th and I found myself with ten lieu 
tenants and one captain medical officer and 150 recently recruited 
soldiers, all of them volunteers. 

After a few days, we had been prepared for overseas shipment and 
went by train from Kelly Field to Garden City, New York. This was 
in late December. I think it was around New Year s week. It was 
frightful ly cold, and even on the streets of New Orleans, there 
was ice. When we left Kelly Field, we were in a violent sandstorm 
and I think I took some of the Texas sand all the way to France 
with me In my overcoat. 

To give the men exercise, I took them off the train at New Orleans 
and marched them through some of the downtown streets and dis 
covered there was ice on the streets from the cold. All the way 
up to Garden City, we were bothered by cold and our pul Iman cars 
were frozen up solid. Toilet facilities were inoperative. Some 
of the men came down with mumps, and some had worse illnesses and 
were taken off the train here and there, and at Garden City I lost 
possibly a total of twenty-five. They were replaced with men who 
had been drafted. 


Maunder: Did your forestry training ever find any use during the war? 




While I was in France, I did very little to keep abreast of for 
estry and very rarely even called on French foresters. I think 
that was an evidence that I felt I was through with forestry. I 
was getting more and more interested In airplanes, an interest 
which dated to the day I saw the Wright brothers attempt to make 
their flight, at Fort Myer in Virginia, to impress the Army suf- 
ficently to purchase one of their planes. 

After the war, I felt that, being rather bad off as to nerves, I 
should take the university job and hold it for a few years, think 
ing that I could recover more rapidly on that kind of a job than in 
the more rigorous work of an engineer, so I accepted the university 
bid in the School of Forestry. 

Emanuel, you say you had a bad case of nerves, 
of your war experience? 

Was that a result 

"training" flight, 
French or 

Yes, entirely so. I was never in combat, although the neighboring 
airfields had been bombed several times, and our own field was 
under observation regularly, but I believe I had too many different 
duties. The Colonel, C. C. Benedict, a West Pointer, was a very 
fine man. Our station was the field from which pilots and observers 
were sent direct to the front. 

I had command of one of seven squadrons, all airplane mechanics, a 
total of 1000 or 1200 men. The Colonel asked me to serve also as 
assistant Post Adjutant, Maintenance Officer and Commander of the 
Headquarters Detachment of 120, plus or minus, pilots and observers. 
This latter job was a tough one. The fliers were all young and full 
of beans and vinegar and eager to see action. They commandeered 
cars and motorcycles and occasionally took off on a 
only to make a "forced landing" at a friendly field of 
English squadrons. I inquired why I was selected. The answer was: 
"I need somebody to say NO when a car or cycle was requested." It 
was hard to say NO to young fellows who couldn t guess how many days 
of life were left to them. 

At the same time, I put in an application to have my own squadron 
changed from a Post engineering squadron for the maintenance of air 
planes to a combat squadron. Although the request was aporoved all 
the way along the line, through General Pershing s office and to 
Washington, when it got into the hands of the Secretary of War after 
many weeks, the end of the war was apparently so close that the ap 
plication was denied. I thought it was rather unfortunate because 
the squadron developed into an excellent crew of airplane mechanics. 
It was probably that experience with the planes that made me more 
firmly convinced I should go back to engineering. 

Maunder: What were you doing? Were you servicing planes coming back off 
front I ine service? 


Fritz: Well, the first field was near Tou I , in the Department of Meuse. 
At that field there was nothing but a farm, and my squadron had 
to start with picks and shovels to prepare a field. From that 
field, when It was completed, wore made the first American flights 
over the lines photographic mlssloi.3 and artillery reg I age . (We 
used a lot of French terms in our work at that time.) 

We were moved to a bombing field for a very short time, and it was 
from that field that the famous 96th Squadron took off and never 
came back, every plane landing in Germany with its bombs in the 
racks. They ran out of gas against a head wind. The very next 
day, a German pilot flew low over our field. Whenever a German 
did that, we knew that he had a message to deliver. When the boys 
picked up the message, tied to a very small parachute, it read some 
thing like this: We thank you for the very fine brand new Breguets 
(daylight French bombers) and we anticipate great pleasure in as 
sociating with your fine young flyers and observers, but what in 
hell will we do with the Major? In those days there was a lot of 
chivalry between the pilots of opposing forces, and many times when 
a pilot ran out of ammunition, he d signal to the German, or vice 
versa, that he couldn t fight any more, and the enemy d wave his 
hand and they d both go back to their fields. 

I was never a flyer but I flew many times with the engineer officer, 
which I felt was a necessity since my men were helping to service 
the planes and keep them flying. One of the saddest duties of my 
job of being in charge of the headquarters detachment was to bury 
the pilots and observers when they were killed not In combat, but 
in a training accident. 

This was the third field of which I m speaking now, which was a 
Second Corps Aeronautical School. We finally built up to about 
1200 men and 125 planes. At this field, the observers got their 
final training in photography missions and some gunnery and aerial 
combat, and also in artillery control. We had no two-way radio 
then; all the signaling was done from the air to the ground with 
some kind of crude radio, but from the ground back to the air, 
there was nothing. The pilots had to fly by signals from the 
ground usually strips of muslin laid on the ground. 


Were you 

f I fers? 

in this experience with any of the great 

Fritz: Indirectly. The 94th and 95th Squadrons, which were pursuit squad 
rons, were at an adjoining field. In these squadrons were such 
pilots as Major Raoul Lufberry, the famous ace, and Eddie Ricken- 
backer, and a young man by the name of Donald Campbell, who, I learned 
later, when I came to the University of California, was the son of 
the man who, in 1923, became President of the University of Califor 
nia. There was also Leonard Hammond, who was an ace. He was the son 
of A. B. Hammond, the principal owner and president of the Hammond 
Lumber Company. I became closely associated with Leonard Hammond 


Fritz: in California on forestry matters until his untimely death from 
leukemia In the early I940 s. 

Maunder: You were on sick leave, were you, from your squadron when you came 
back to this country? 

Fritz: No, I was never on sick leave. I was ordered on sick leave, and to 
some kind of a rehabilitation outfit at Nice in southern France. 
But I didn t want to leave my squadron because it might have been 
ordered back to the States almost any time. Because I was with them 
from the start and we were a close-knit unit, I wanted to be sure 
their records were in good shape, so I declined that. 

But the nerves got worse, and when I finally got back to the States 
in May or early June and had my men discharged and it was then the 
turn of the officers to be discharged, I was ordered then to the 
post hospital for observation and eventual transfer to Cooperstown, 
where the Air Force had a recuperation hospital. I learned that 
many of the patients there were what we called "gold brickers," 
who wanted to be on the government payroll a little longer. I 
decided it wouldn t be any good for me, and I could recover more 
quickly on a job as a teacher. So I asked for release from that 
and was promptly given my discharge and permitted to leave. 

Although during the war, I had become more firmly convinced that 
for my own good I should return to engineering, nevertheless, I had 
a very soft spot for forestry. It happened that while I was on a 
hospital bed in January, 1919, I received a letter from the Univer 
sity of California and in the same mail one from Mr. G. A. Pearson, 
for whom I worked in Arizona and who was the Director of the Fort 
Valley Forest Experiment Station. Both letters offered me jobs pay 
ing exactly the same amount, but I had determined that if I did go 
back into forestry, I would not return to federal service. As a 
result, I accepted the bid from the University of California. (In 
fact, the University had asked me to come there to teach sawmill ing 
and wood technology back In 1916, but because of the imminence of 
war, I had decided to hold off and asked them to forget about my 
teaching. ) 

Well, the army story doesn t have much to do with all this. I might 
say that before I went into the Army, I had sent In my Forest Ser 
vice resignation to the Regional Office In Albuquerque. I think it 
was even before war was declared. And they asked me to reconsider, 
but I had gotten fed up not with the work, but with the personnel 
practices of the Forest Service. 

In those days everybody in the Regional Offices and also in the 
Washington Office was not much older than the men in the field, and 

in my opinion, ninety percent of them were jumped to responsible 
jobs before they were really ready. They took a very bureaucratic 
attitude too early in life. 


Fritz: Some of these men were In top offices until their retirement and 
never got out of that bureaucratic attitude. In fact, they got 

After war was declared, I submitted my resignation again, and this 
time I had the much better excuse that I wanted into the military 
service, and 1 received a very cordial letter of congratulations 
and so on from the Regional Forester, who was F. C. W. Pooler. 






Now, Emanuel, I d like to ask you a question regarding World War I 
and the period Immediately thereafter. Did the war have any in 
fluences on the character of forestry employment on Industry s 
attitude toward employing foresters? 

If it had any effect, I think It was very small except for one view 
point, and that is the fact that so many lumbermen and foresters 
were thrown together in that huge regiment known as the 20th Engi 
neers (Forest). That regiment had, I believe, 25,000 men. It was 
the largest regiment the country ever set up. 

The men were scattered all over France, and their job was to cut 
down trees and manufacture them into crossties and trench timbers, 
lumber for cantonments and so on. Some of those men who were for 
esters joined private companies after their discharge, and some of 
the loggers and lumbermen went back to their companies with some 
understanding of what forestry is all about. So from that point 
of view it had some effect. 

Beyond that, I should say that foresters had to make their own way, 
they had to create jobs. Some forestry graduates, of course, had 
a bent for private employ even while they were In school and took 
employment at anything that was available sometimes engineering 
work, sometimes logging. 

However, I m glad to say that many of them retained their forestry 
ideas and principles as to what could be done in the woods at very 
little, If any, expense, and they very gradually worked themselves 
Into very prominent positions where they could actually do some 
thing. Outstanding among those was Swift Berry. He was in the 
Forest Service for many years but resigned in the mid-Twenties to 
go with the Michigan-California Lumber Company. He gradually worked 
up to the managership of that company and, I believe, a vice-presi 
dent. When he was retired, he shortly thereafter became a California 
state senator. 

Then there was Richard Colgan. He joined the Diamond Match Company. 
When a man in those days quit forestry, whether it was with the fed 
eral service, the state or a university, to go with a private company, 
he was looked upon as having left the fold and to have gone over to 
the enemy. That was even said of Colonel Greeley when he quit the 
chief forestership to become secretary-manager of the West Coast 
Lumbermen s Association in 1928. 

Were more jobs in private industry made available to professional 
foresters after the war? 

Fritz: There were always jobs in the lumber industry for foresters not to 


Fritz: practice forestry, but to do some of the work that was necessary 
In the lumber Industry. It was unfortunate that more foresters 
didn t make the changeover like Dick Colgan and Swift Berry, be 
cause they sold their Ideas to +helr principals, and, in turn, 
they gradually got the logging personnel sold on a different method 
of logging. 

In California, for example, I remember that Swift Berry and Dick 
Colgan were looked down on for a while because they quit what the 
others called "the profession of forestry," and yet these men did 
so much in their companies that they became top men and were able 
to change their companies attitude completely from liquidation to 
operation designed to achieve permanence. 

Maunder: Going back to this World War I period and the period right after 
it, this was a time In which PInchot was no longer affiliated 
directly with the Forest Service. Yet, as you say, he was having 
quite a considerable Influence. How was he doing this and what 
channels was he using to exert this influence? 

Fritz: Pinchot was influential until the time of his death. Pinchot, as 
I believe I stated earlier, had a magnetic personality and a great 
deal of energy. He had wealth, and he could indulge In activities 
which were denied a man without that kind of money. It brought 
him, as you may remember, the governorship of Pennsylvania for two 
terms, and he spearheaded several studies and was a frequent speaker. 
I recall distinctly one talk he made in 1940. If you re interested 
in that, I ll make some comments on it. 

He gave that talk before the Society of American Foresters at their 
annual banquet in Washington in 1940. Pinchot had a great many 
friends and close adherents in the Forest Service men like Earle 
Clapp, Raphael Zon, Ray Marsh, Chris Granger, and Dana Parkinson. 
They were all fine men, up to a point; as to their philosophies, 
they believed in force, and they couldn t see that anyone else 
could have any knowledge of the subject but themselves, and they 
were going to force themselves and their philosophies on others. 

As you know now, that didn t work out. In the case of Earle Clapp, 
he even tried to force his philosophy on the schools. He tried to 
get the schools to adopt the Forest Service approach and practically 
be under the control of the federal Forest Service. He was badly 
defeated on that by the school men themselves because school men 
want and should have absolute Independence of any outside influence, 
whether it s public or private, as long as they are constructive. 

Maunder: How did Clapp go about this? How were his efforts rebuffed? 

Fritz: When Earle Clapp was acting Chief Forester, he wrote a letter to all 
regional foresters and heads of experiment stations, requesting them 
to influence the forestry schools to slant their forestry teaching 
in favor of federal regulation (the U.S.F.S. policy). The 


Fritz: ever-watchful H. H. Chapman got hold of a copy through his private 
underground. Copies were mailed broadcast among foresters. It 
created a furor. It was socialism reduced to a dictatorship and 
gradually died out. 

Maunder: What was Pinchot s vehicle for exerting this influence? Was it 
purely this little group of his loyal supporters still remaining 
in the Forest Service, or was it the Society of American Foresters 
or any other conservation group he was a member of? 




Pinchot was chairman of the first committee, as I recall it, in 
1919 to start the ball rolling toward a regulatory law. 

Chairman of a committee of what group? 

I don t recall the name. The Journal of Forestry contains the 
story in one of its early 1920 numbers" Pinchot s name was magic 
among foresters and anathema among lumbermen. We must say that 
Pinchot s motives and those of his cohorts were good. Their method 
of approach, I think, was entirely wrong. 

I used to look at It something like this: If you were a salesman 
trying to sell a new product to a new prospect, you certainly would 
not go into his office and call the man a name right away and antago 
nize him. You would be friendly and you would try to tell him that 
the product you were selling would be helpful to him, that the cost 
would be recovered plus some extra return, that he could do his job 
better, more cheaply, and he would survive better in the competitive 

But foresters didn t do that. They put on the gloves and they went 
right at It, and that, of course, developed great opposition among 
the timberland owners and the operators, from which the profession 
of forestry is still suffering. 

This committee which you spoke of which Pinchot headed up right 
after World War I that was a committee of what group? 

Principally foresters. I believe it was all foresters, from my 
recollection. I was interested In it only in an incidental way. 

Was it a self-appointed group, or was it a group duly appointed by 
an established agency or association? 

It was a Society of American Foresters committee. In fact, I believe 
it was wholly a committee of the Society of American Foresters, and 
In turn they got Congress to have a study made. It was one of the 
earliest studies of that kind and was followed later by the Copeland 

*U.S. Department of Agriculture: 
Forestry ("Copeland Report"), 2 vols., 
1st Session, 1933. 

National Plan For Amer i can 
S. Doc. 12, 73rd Congress, "~ 


Fritz: The last one was The Timber Resources Review, which purported to 
be merely a statistical study of the present situation as to lum 
bering, timber and forestry. But the data was generally Inter 
preted by the Forest Service to suit its own desires, and I m very 
sorry to say that I believe this is the case today with the so-called 
Timber Resources Review Report. 

Maunder: Is this a condition, in your estimation, that has always been pres 
ent in the resources reviews and reports? 

Fritz: In general, yes, at least up to the present (1958). There are new 
men in the Forest Service, considerably younger men than my age 
class, some of whom have adopted the tactics of the old-timers. 
I ve got to say something about those old-timers. They were men 
of excellent character, excellent ideas, and they were sacrificing 
something. They could have done better in other fields but thev 
elected to crusade in behalf of the better management of tinber- 

However, they were almost wholly ignorant of history and economics. 
If they had only sat down to ask themselves why the situations were 
such as they were, they would have been better able to make recom 

Now, I feel that Pinchot and his people did a great job while he 
was Chief in contacting several timber owners and making manage 
ment plans. They are all pre-1910, as I recall, and are now museum 
pieces. Not one ever amounted to anything or was adopted, but never 
theless they were good for their time. The times were just not ripe 
for the application of such plans. 

However, I believe the lumber industry could have done a great deal 
at no cost whatsoever if it had not been antagonized. There were 
a few, of course, like the Hardtners in Louisiana who absorbed 
some of it and went off on their own- at first without any support or 
sympathy from the foresters. When a lumberman in those days said 
that he was going to do something in his woods, he was promptly 
laughed at and held suspect. If he kept quiet and after five or 
ten years, showed that he was actually doing something in the woods, 
he was acclaimed. 

Maunder: Did the war years carry with them certain regulatory provisions for 
cutting practices to provide raw materials needed in the war? 

Fritz: There was no regulatory law passed before or after World War I, but 
there were many efforts. The first one was started by 61 f ford Pin 
chot and his followers, before the war was hardly cold. I recall 
that many foresters lined up with him. 

A report was prepared I ve forgotten the name of it but I ll fill 
It in later when I go over the text which castigated the lumber 
industry and made some wild statements about an Impending timber 


Fritz: famine.* It scared a lot of lumber people, of course, and made 
some others feel that maybe they were missing a bet by net 
buying more standing timber to ward off for themselves a famine 
of logs for their sawmills. Those men got badly burned. Even 
before the war, you ll remember, Pi^chot spoke frequently about 
an impending timber famine. This stimulated some lumber people 
to go out and invest in standing timber with the expectation 
that timber was going to be very scarce. Some of them had to 
hold that timber for thirty or forty years and pay taxes on it 
all that time with no return on their money. Some of them had 
to sell for what they paid for it. A few others did very well 
by holding on. 

Unfortunately, it created a very bad impression of foresters 
among lumbermen. I think the forestry profession is still 
suffering from that, and I m very much afraid that the publicity 
and the propaganda that has gone out as an interpretation of the 
Forest Service Timber Resources Review released this year (1958) 
might return some of that antipathy on the part of lumberman 
towards foresters as being unreliable forecasters. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Timber Resources for America s 
Future. Forest Resource Report No. 14 (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government 
Printing Office, January 1958.) 




Fry: When you decided to come to the University of California, there 

were two men on the faculty that you knew before, Donald Bruce and 
David T. Mason. Did they influence you to come? 

Fritz: Yes, I knew both while I was in the Forest Service in Missoula, 

Montana. In fact, Mason was my boss there and earlier was the one 
who encouraged me to come West to help him on a study of the lum 
ber industry. (I had declined two jobs offered me by the U.S.F.S. 
when Mason wrote me stating that one is permitted only three offers. 
My New Hampshire job was near its end, so I accepted.) The report 
on that study was not published until after World War I. It was a 
valuable experience for one who later was to teach lumber manufac 

To gather information for the Mason report, I had to travel to the 
sawmills of the Inland Empire, spending a week or more at each. I 
visited the offices of a lot of pine companies in Idaho and eastern 
Oregon, and two in eastern Washington. After all the condemnation 
of lumber people I had read and heard while a student, it came as a 
pleasant surprise to find the Inland Empire managers and assistants 
such cordial and cooperative men. 

One day the manager of a large company, A. W. Laird, passed my desk 
and asked how I was getting along and if I was getting the coopera 
tion I needed from his staff. After I told him it could not be 
better, he put his hand on my shoulder and said, "We like to help 
the Forest Service field men from Missoula and give them all the 
data we have for use in their studies, but we are never sure of the 
fairness of the officials in Washington." 

Bruce, Joseph Kittredge, Steve Malvern, and I were in the same of 
fice, all of us assistants to Mason in that study. All came to 
California. But I have wandered from your question. 

Yes, Mason recommended me to Walter Mulford to teach wood technology 
and lumber manufacturing. After my assignment with Mason in Mis 
soula ended, June 30, 1915, I was transferred to the Coeur d Alene 
National Forest in northern Idaho. Shortly thereafter, Mason and 
Bruce resigned from the U.S.F.S. and came to Berkeley to help Mul 
ford organize the Division of Forestry of the College of Agricul 
ture, as it was then known. Thirteen months later I was transferred 
to Arizona. 

In the summer of 1917, I was invited by Mulford to call on him for 
an interview. I went to Berkeley from Arizona and while there, Mason 









invited me to his home for dinner where I met Ansel Hall and 
Knowles Ryerson, both of them seniors in forestry. I was inter 
ested but told Mulford I was planning soon to enter Officers 
Training Camp and would not be jvailable until after the war. 
Mulford renewed his offer in January, 1919, and I accepted. 



industry was pretty much behind the Mason report, 

Yes indeed. They would appear and participate in 
In support of it? 


Yes. They thought it a good thing and they offered help in any 
way we asked. 

And then you went to California? 

Yes. Returning from France and after a short visit with my relatives 
in Baltimore, 1 went back West by train to take up my duties at the 
University of California. My wife had spent the war period in Wash 
ington as a secretary to one of the Ordnance Department Colonels. 
After the Armistice she went to Florida to stay with her folks. 
When I returned to the States from France, in May, 1919, she came 
to Garden City, Long Island, New York (Mitchel Field) to meet me. 
I had to remain to muster out my squadron and then in June, I was 

My wife accompanied me to Baltimore and then to California. En 
route we stopped at Flagstaff, Arizona, where I spent a day with 
my pre-war boss, the great G. A. Pearson, director of the Fort Val 
Forest Experiment Station. 


Incidentally, while I was hospitalized in France for an appendec 
tomy, I received letters from both Mulford and Pearson, each offer 
ing a job and at identical salaries, $2,000. My choice was easy. 
I did not like federal employ and was really not suited for it by 
temperament, being an ingrained private enterpriser. But I looked 
upon the California job as temporary, perhaps three or four years, 
or until I could get my nerve system under control again. Although 
I loved forestry, my training was mostly (and better for) engineer 
ing, and I had a yen to return to it. But I am glad I stayed at 
the University and in forestry. 

Emanuel, when you made the transition from work in the federal ser 
vice to work in the field of teaching at the University of Cali 
fornia after World War I, how did your friends in the Forest Service 
feel about your decision? Was there any comment about it? 

I don t think there was any feeling against it. 
most foresters felt it was a good idea for field 
into teaching. I had resigned from the U.S.F.S. 

Rather I think that 
foresters to go 
before I was 


Fritz: offered the University of California professorship. It was the 

policy of the Forest Service at that Hmo to rafher welcome n man 
leaving Ms own service to go even Into private employ because 
they felt It "spread the gospel" of forestry. 

In my own case, I was early disillusioned as to the necessity for 
crusading, and I felt the indirect methods were entirely wrong. I 
made a very definite break in 1924 with that particular group of 
foresters who tried to advance forestry by threats of socialistic 
legislation and by name-calling. 

Maunder: And that was in 1919? 

Fritz: Yes, 1919. My duty at the University of California was to begin 
on July I. Since it was the vacation period and no students were 
in prospect until August, I didn t arrive until the middle of the 
month. Almost immediately I made a field trip at the suggestion 
of Professor Walter Mulford, who was head of the School at the time, 
to acquaint myself with the pine and redwood regions of the state. 
(The teaching began in mid-August at that time.) 

Maunder: Were the courses that you taught that first year, courses that were 
already well established in the curriculum of the Forest School or 
were they new courses? 

Fritz: They were standard courses for foresters. One was on lumber manu 

facturing (officially titled "Forest Utilization"). The other course 
was "Wood Technology." They had already been set up, but the School 
was new. It was organized in 1914 and had less than a dozen stu 
dents at that time. The professor who had started the courses, 
Merritt Pratt, was more of a field forester than a sawmill man or 
a wood technologist, so I practically had to start from scratch. 
Pratt resigned to become State Forester of California. 

Incidentally, I gave those two courses continuously for the entire 
thirty-five years I was on the faculty, constantly changing and im 
proving them. Both gave me a chance to employ my mechanical engi 
neering training in Baltimore and at Cornell. My title was assis 
tant professor of forestry. However, I never taught forestry as a 
course except to pinch-hit for others occasionally. So although 
I had quit engineering for forestry, I was tossed right back into 

Both were technical courses. Wood technology included wood anatomy, 
i.e., how wood is made up of cells, how the cells are arranged, how 
the cell pattern can help one to identify the wood and get an in 
dication of some of its characteristics. The course included also 
the properties of wood, physical, mechanical and chemical, all re 
lated to the cell structure. It was a very interesting course and 
I enjoyed very much giving it. (For almost ten years it was re 
quired of criminology majors because wood is often involved in a 
crime. This made me a member of the criminology faculty also.) 


Fritz: As a matter of fact, I first got interested in forestry through 
my "do-it-yourself" work as a kid working with wood. I had an 
excellent training in shop work for a period of four or five years. 
Also, I had collected about one hundred specimens of wood. 

Fry: In Baltimore? 

Fritz: Yes. The Baltimore Polytechnic Institute; very highly regarded 

by eastern engineering colleges. Dr. J. B. Conant, formerly presi 
dent of Harvard and a postwar ambassador, who made a study of high 
schools for, I believe, a foundation or the federal government, 
stated to me while he was visiting in Berkeley that the B. P. I. 
was one of the best high schools in the country. 

The title of my other course was a misnomer because when I took 
it over, I discovered that the description in the University s 
catalog of courses was: "the manufacture of lumber, the utiliza 
tion of wood, grazing." Being a city-bred boy, I knew nothing 
about grazing except that cattle and sheep ate grass. Some wes 
tern forests are, of course, utilized by grazing men on a very 
large scale. The Forest Service, after 1905, had a tough time 
with the grazing people over the use of Forest Service land. 
That s pretty well resolved now. John Muir was one of the first 
to condemn the practice of heavy grazing in the woods. He re 
ferred to the sheep as locusts. 

Fry: I suspect a number of you on the faculty had to more or less put 
your textbooks together as you went. Did you find this true? 

Fritz: Yes, Professors Record, Hawley, Chapman and Bryant did that. Bryant 
did such a good job on his sawmill ing book that there was not a 
man in the country, including myself, who could have done it any 
better. I had considered at one time, in the 1940 s, preparing 
a book on sawmill ing and seasoning and "remanufacturing," as it 
is called. I made a fairly good start at it, but I was not in 
terested in writing books just to impress the University adminis 

I still have, I think, the best collection of material on the 
manufacturing processes in the files at the University of Cali 
fornia up to 1954 when I retired. This material is now in Ban 
croft Library. Bryant s book served my purpose very well, but 
I kept my lectures up to date as improvements in lumber manufac 
turing were made. In fact, after World War II, I gave serious 
thought to a book to update Bryant s. Glad I didn t further 
changes came so fast, no book would have been up-to-date at pub- 
I i cat ion time. 

Very few of our forestry students were interested in sawmill ing. 
Those that were so minded have done very well. Many foresters 
still regard sawmill ing as a thing foreign to them. 

Fry: Forestry students of the first few decades were more interested in 


Fry: the out-of-doors? They were primarily there for silviculture? 

Fritz: Not entirely, but it was a strong motivation. I was as keen for 
the outdoors as the others, but after one has entered a forestry 
school he learns about the several branches of forestry. Some 
become wood technologists, some loggers, but most stay in some 
branch of forest management. I think if you should look into the 
backgrounds of the foresters of the first thirty years, you would 
find a high percentage of city-bred boys who had the good fortune 
to visit a forest or big park and became outdoor men as a result. 

In my own case, reared in a large city, I think that the 600-acre 
Druid Hill Park in Baltimore and the woody environs of the Cornell 
campus had an influence on my decision later to quit engineering 
for some outdoor pursuit. Perhaps the clincher was the removal of 
the Fritz family to the country in 1907. (Father hated the city.) 
But the engineering had its influence too. It makes one practi 
cal ize his ideals. My courses at the University of California 
were more engineering than forestry. 

If there is no logging in the forest, there is no need for for 
estry and no need for a sawmill. The owner of a sawmill that buys 
its logs from others has no need for a forestei but he may hire a 
forestry school graduate who has become interested in wood tech 
nology or the engineering aspects of lumbering. 

Fry: Was the technology of lumbering largely overlooked then, in the 
total curriculum? 

Fritz: Not at all. In some schools, more importance might be attached 

to silviculture and, nowadays, economics. In others, logging and 
milling were given considerable prominence. Our forestry schools 
are patterned after the European system where utilization is the 
principal objective and plays a big part. 

In the West, the University of Washington and Oregon State College 
emphasized especially the logging phase. That was proper because 
even though logging is an engineering activity, it does affect the 
forest. But once a log is made and brought to the sawmill, its con 
version is mechanical engineering. The logger is the key man, in 
my opinion. He can make or break the forester s plan for continu 
ous production. Therefore, he should be not only an engineer but 
have a good understanding of forestry and be sympathetic toward its 
objectives and methods. 

Sawmill ing is not alone in requiring engineering applications. 
Wood technology requires it too for mechanical properties and 
seasoning. The latter calls for a good course in heating and ven 
tilating, but at the same time, the anatomy of wood and the behavior 
of its cells must be thoroughly understood to make seasoning suc 
cessful. The anatomy of wood can be regarded as applied botany. 


Fry: Did you have any textbooks on such things? 

Fritz: There was one by Professor S. J. Record of Yale University on wood 
technology. It was a very simple book. It was based in larqe part 
on work done in Europe. I had raken his course at Yale. No one 
knew much more about wood than one found In botany books. But 
Record and Professor Harry Brown at Syracuse added a lot of new in 

He told me once that I was his best student. If I was the best stu 
dent, it was only because I enjoyed working with wood and because 
of my previous experiences with it. I had no biology courses in 
high school or at college, so had to go to summer school to study 
botany so that I could enter Yale. Until then, I did not know that 
wood was an aggregation of cells! 

I had a collection of wood samples before I went to Forestry School, 
somewhere near a hundred, and when I learned more about wood from 
Sam Record, I discovered that I had mislabeled a lot of mine. I 
had misinterpreted descriptions of the woods in the books available 
to me at the time. One was Romeyn Hough s fine book on trees, and 
another was old Bulletin 10, by F. Roth, titled Wood. Other books 
were pretty sketchy. They must have been written by carpenters. 

Fry: It appears that your Forest Utilization course was a field which 
was not yet well defined. 

Fritz: It was well defined but very little text material was available 
until Professor Ralph C. Bryant, of Yale University s School of 
Forestry, wrote two books. One was on logging, the other was on 
sawmill ing. He was not an engineer. He was the first forestry 
graduate in the U.S. (Cornell University), and therefore the first 
in the U.S. to receive a degree in forestry. 

I was four years older than most of the students in my class, and 
being a Cornell graduate myself, Bryant and I became very good 
friends. In fact, Bryant and Record were friends until their deaths. 

I owe much to them for their help. Later Nelson C. Brown of Syracuse 
wrote a book on I umbering, and Harry P. Brown, also of Syracuse, wrote 
one on wood technology, a classic. Harry was quite a scholar. In 
cidentally, Harry Brown was one of my three professors in botany at 
Cornell summer school in 1911. All three were excellent teachers. 

I found botany very exciting. 

Fry: Were your engineering studies at Cornell of any help to you at Yale? 

Fritz: Yes. It was of great help both In wood technology when we studied 
products, and in Professor Bryant s courses, especially when our 
class went to Mississippi for the spring semester of 1914, where we 
studied logging, then sawmill ing at the company s great mill some 
thirty or forty miles south at Bogalusa, Louisiana. The Great 


Fritz: Southern Lumber Company had the biggest sawmill in the world at 
that time, 1,000,000 board feet per day. We were there for two 
weeks, at the close of which we had to write a full report on the 
sawmill, kilns and appurtenant departments. To me, it was very 
simple because sawmill Ing Is a very simple engineering process. 
But some of my classmates had an awful time. Several could not 
figure out what made that carriage go back and forth. Could it be 
the man riding it? 

I think I wrote something like 110 pages longhand for my report. It 
was illustrated with diagrams, flow charts, and equipment outlines, 
as I recall it. It was probably the biggest report that Bryant 
had gotten up to that time, and I was quite proud of it. Later on 
when I came to the University of California to teach, I used the 
report as a guide. Then Bryant asked me to donate it to the Forest 
School Library at Yale. I did so, and recently learned it is still 
there. (Incidentally, Professor Record wrote a book on the mechani 
cal properties of wood while I was his student. He credited me in 
the preface for helping him just another instance of my Cornell 
engineering being of help.) 

Fry: I was wondering if you delved any into timber economics in your 
University course. 

Fritz: Somewhat. Mason had organized a course which was called "The Lum 
ber Industry." It was not so much technical as economic. It 
started with the history of the industry and continued through 
the full story. He was not at the University very long and I 
took over that course when he left. It drew students from the 
College of Commerce, some of whom were sons of lumbermen. 

Then in 1927, while I was away on sabbatical and leave, and with 
out any consultation with me, it was cancelled because somebody in 
the University administration felt that we had two courses that 
were more or less alike. Well, they were so only in small part; the 
course attracted an entirely different type of student. There was 
also a campuswide demand for cutting down the number of courses, ap 
parently fearful of unnecessary proliferation. I was sorry to learn 
it had been dropped. I enjoyed giving it. It was my largest class, with 
most of the students interested in business administration. It was 
also a course which would have made an excellent book, separate 
from my proposed sawmill ing book. 

I was pleased that many of the students went into the lumber busi 
ness and rose to managerships or part owners. This course was also 
an opportunity to sow some seeds in behalf of forestry and manage 
ment for permanence. 


Fry: Do you feel that the University of California had enough emphasis 
on forest economics at that time? 

Fritz: Very little emphasis. In fact, who was competent to teach it? 


Fritz: Mason had more experience in it than anyone else because of the 
study he had made in Idaho for the Forest Service. Some of it 
rubbed off on me. 

Fry: You mean it was difficult to ger soi.:?one to teach this because 
the field was not well enough developed then? 

Fritz: Of course, you could hire a professor of economics, but economics 
is such an intangible thing that anyone could do it. An economist 
is pretty much like a philosopher no one can contest with him. 
Each has his own ideas. It is not like an exact science where 
two and two always make four. 

Fry: I was wondering if the difficulty was that forest economists were 
not available at that time, or if the field itself was not really 
built up as a field of study. 

Fritz: At Cornell, I used some advance credit time on economics courses, 
including corporation finance. At Yale we had a course in forest 
economics. We used the book written by the German forester B. E. 
Fernow, and titled Forest Economics. The Germans practiced for 
estry not because they were emotionally concerned about the forest, 
but because it was a business and an economic necessity. 

My mother, when I became interested in forestry, began to tell me 
about forestry in Germany. Her father was in the forestry service 
of the then Kingdom of Wurttemburg. Forestry, as she explained it, 
was not only the growing of trees but also their utilization. In 
cidentally, ancestry had no influence on my getting into forestry. 

Fry: Fernow s Forest Economics was not really applicable to American 
forestry, was it? 

Fritz: No. Our conditions were entirely different. But the principles 
of economics are the same the world around, i.e., you can t get 
blood out of a turnip. If there is no market for wood, there is 
no lumbering; then you can t practice commercial forestry and 
there s no need for it. 

Even in the parks, the Germans and Americans use foresters for what 
ever they have learned about tree characteristics and forest manage 
ment. Even park forests need some management. The theory of letting 
nature take her course in a large park is all wrong. People generate 
problems. The more people, the greater the number and complexity of 
the problems. 

The market place sparks lumbering. Lumbering requires forestry for 
its permanence. The better the market, the more intensive forest 
management can be. 

Fry: So you were primarily engaged in teaching the wood technology courses 
and some economics? 










During the Second World War, I was asked to give the forest pro 
tection course, which was really fire protection, and I taught 
that until the end of the war and thereafter continued with the 
sawmill ing and the wood technology. 

What can you tell us about the early days of your teaching experience? 

It wasn t my first experience at teaching. I had four years of it 
in the Engineering Department of the Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, 
and at the same time I taught mechanical drawing for two or three 
years at night in the Maryland Institute. I came to the University 
of California with experience in teaching, and 1 really did like it, 
although when I left the Polytechnic Institute in Baltimore I felt 
that teachers are very much inclined to get into a rut. It was for 
that reason that I thought I would stay at the University of Cali 
fornia only a few years and then go back into practical work, most 
I i ke ly engi neeri ng. 

As time went on, however, I 

liked it so well, always had such a fine 

group of students, developed a great admiration for the University 
of California, and delighted in being with foresters in an engineer 
ing capacity. There was the closest relationship with young men Cl 
was young myself at the time, only about thirty-three when I started) 
The first students, being ex-soldiers, were in their early or mid- 
twenties, so we got along famously. I also liked the state and 
liked the possibilities that the state offered, so instead of quit 
ting after a few years, I stayed on and on. 

One time in 1937, my wife said, "I don t think you re ever going 
back to engineering so I m going out and look for a better home." 
We had a nice enough home at the time, but we felt we should have 
something better for the two girls. Fortunately, she found what 
we both felt was a very nice home with a large garden and we bought 

When was that? 

November, 1937. It s the house we live in today. 

That s when prices on houses were a good deal lower than they are 

That s right, and it was a good thing because professors didn t have 
much chance to save much. We ve put in a considerable sum of money 
to make improvements and more than doubled the cost, to say nothing 
of furniture, drapes, rugs, and so on. 

In teaching your subjects, to what extent did you take your students 
out into the field to show them the actual conditions of sawmill ing? 

The University of California, situated in Berkeley, is obviously at 
some distance from the forests; so at its very start, before I came, 


Fritz: the school set up a three-months summer field course, attendance 
to which was required and, incidentally, without credit. It was 
one of the requirements for graduation and obtaining the degree 
of Bachelor of Science in forestry. At that time, three of the 
professors would take turns. Each c n e had one month. My month 
was generally the third, and 1 taught the field work, principally 
timber cruising, logging, and milling. I took the students out on 
visits to nearby sawmills and logging operations. 

Summer camp teaching was very satisfying and it was a wonderful way 
to learn to know the students, what they were capable of, their 
drawbacks, their oddities, and their capacities. As a result, the 
faculty members were able to place the graduates when an opportunity 
presented itself in categories to which they were best fitted. 

One particularly interesting summer project was the "mill-scale 
study." Each student had a post In the mill, actually in pairs. 
At a signal one of each pair would move to another post. In this 
way the students got a very good idea of what happens to a log in 
the mill. 

I m very glad to say that those early men got into very good jobs, 
that is, those who stayed with forestry. A few of them went into 
other lines of work. During a few summers, 1 had also a few days 
of the silviculture, about one week, but other than this, I did 
not teach any forestry courses. 

Maunder: Who among your students stand out most vividly as being outstand 
ing men? 

Fritz: Well, one of the earliest was Tom Oliver. He was the son of a 

lumberman and shortly after his graduation became assistant manager 
of the Hobart Mills, and later full manager. When that company 
came to an end, he became manager of the very large Fruit Growers 
Supply Company sawmill at Susanvi I le, California. Until his re 
tirement, he was the manager of a large sawmill at Medford, Oregon. 

Then there was Lawrence C. Merrlam, the present Regional Director 
of the National Park Service in San Francisco. There was Herm 
Miller, who became a very well-known logging engineer, first with 
the Pacific Lumber Company in California, and then with Crown Zel- 
lerbach in Oregon and Washington. In the same class was John C. 
Sammi , who is presently a professor of forestry at New York State 
College of Forestry in Syracuse. 

The contact with university students was most pleasant, and after 
my retirement in 1954 it was this close association with young men 
that I missed most, and still miss. Naturally, in any group of 
students there are some students who stand out and are easily picked 
as "winners" in the future; there are others who will merely be 
good workers, and others who never should have gone to a university. 



Fry : 




I was early impressed with the way Nature takes care of the dis 
tribution of men as to their capabilities, much like the distribu 
tion of trees In a forest. For example, there can bo only one 
president of any one company, only one president of the United 
States, only one governor of a stats, and although they change at 
intervals, the number who can rise to such distinguished positions 
is quite small. But there s a much larger field for the directive 
work, the technical work, the management work, and so on. Then 
there s a third group that will always be doing work at a desk or 
doing field work as an employee who has very little chance to rise. 
Their jobs are no less essential than that of the higher officials. 

It reminds me of an editorial I read as a young man in one of the 
Baltimore papers in which the author stated that a man must learn 
what his capabilities and limitations are, and that he would be 
very unhappy if he felt he should have gone higher in competition 
with his colleagues. He should recognize his limitations and be 
the best and happiest in the category to which he was fitted. 

Did you do any work through forest extension on lumbering? 


No, not through the Extension Division. I might have suggested 
several times but it didn t work out. Almost all of my private 
redwood forest management work was of the nature of extension, but 
not official ly. 

I think I noticed a few letters in your files, letters routed your way 
asking for specific bits of information that someone in a lumber company 
would want regarding either wood product uses or lumbering technology. 

Oh yes, I had a lot of letters like that, maybe some hundreds, not 
only from lumber companies but also individuals who had a wood prob 

You seem to have had a lot of 
giving advice like this. 

letters to answer all the time in 

They were very interesting letters and I answered every one of them. 
Some led to friendships that opened the doors to much help and informa 
tion of use in my classes. A teacher sitting at a desk doesn t have 
any lumber to handle, he doesn t sell any, he doesn t buy much. So 
he knows that when a man writes a letter, he has a problem and you 
begin to think it over. It s a problem that you have probably never 
thought of before. Of course, when I was new and green here, I had 
a lot to learn, even though I had been in sawmills a great deal before 
I came here to teach. I started to say, that looking back over my 
consulting work, if I had been interested in making a lot of money, 
I should have employed my consulting work in the sawmill because 
in my opinion, the lumber industry at that time needed mechanical 
engineers far more than it needed foresters. 

Maunder: At that particular time. 







Yes. That isn t true now. 

The mechanical people have more than caught up now. 
managers that you need now. 

It s the land 

It is land managers we need now, but we still need general engineers 
because of electrification and extensive automation. It won t be 
very long before we have the helicopter doing the log transportation. 
It would be a great aid for better forestry. That s just my opinion. 
I ve been in communication with the Miller people for some time, but 
this company was sold to Fairchild. Hi I ler had on the drawing boards 
a helicopter capable of lifting a twenty-ton load. I don t know 
what Fairchild s interest in a large helicopter is. 

Harry D. Tiemann has certainly made a contribution to the tech 
nology of forestry. He must be ninety years old now. 

Let me tell you something about Tiemann. Tiemann could do things 
in wood technology that very few foresters could do, because very 
few foresters have had complete courses in physics and mathematics 
and certainly practically nothing in theoretical mechanics. Tiemann 
came into the Yale Forestry School as an M.E., a mechanical engineer, 
and with a knowledge of steam, heating and ventilating, good physics 
and good mechanics and so on, a natural for those days. He was at 
Madison Laboratory, you know. 

Before 1910, Tiemann had the same trouble at that time in talking 
to people manufacturing lumber or using lumber that those of my age 
class had in trying to promote the introduction of forestry. And 
Tiemann deserves a great deal of credit for breaking the ice be 
cause he convinced lumbermen that they could do their seasoning 
more perfectly, faster, more cheaply by studying the physical laws 
that affect the seasoning of lumber. 

Tiemann did the basic work, and I do hope you ll get him on your 
records because I think he never got full credit for his work. The 
great Forest Products Laboratory at Madison, Wisconsin, has carried 
forward Tiemann s work in lumbering seasoning as well as many other 
developments in which wood is involved design of wood structure, 
the chemistry of wood, its physical and mechanical properties, wood 
preservation, and so on. It was easier to interest wood industries 
in its work than it was for foresters to interest them in forest 
management. It was of more immediate and practical value to them. 


Fry: What did you think of the University faculty outside the School of 
Forestry when you came here? 

Fritz: I made many friends in other departments. There was a large coterie 
of distinguished professors. It was stimulating to converse with 

Fritz: those with whom I came in contact. There were very few "stuffed 
shirts," but there were a few Communists. One in the English de 
partment used to visit lumber towns and stir up trouble, right 
after World War II. He was probably the one who called the redwood 
area the "green hell of the redwoods." If he ever had a mea! at a 
western logging camp, he never ate so well at home. 

There also were some cliques. One would meet at lunch around a 
large circular table in the Faculty Club to discuss campus politics, 
a subject that never interested me. 

Shortly after my arrival, I called on the Dean of the College of 
Engineering, thinking that since we were both Cornel I ians and en 
gineers, I could enlist his help to attract some engineer students 
to my classes. I was taken aback when he started giving me a lec 
ture on conservation. (In those days, forestry was regarded as a 
synonym for conservation.) Pointing to his waste basket, he in 
effect said, "If you foresters are really interested in conservation, 
you could start saving trees by reducing the waste paper load." 

I learned from him that there must have been a hassle over setting 
up a forestry school. Apparently some felt that the engineering 
department could give all the courses needed. I got the idea that 
our little forestry school started off under a cloud. 

Walter Mulford, then head of the Division of Forestry, told me 
about the Academic Senate and that I was automatically a member. 
He volunteered to take me to several of its meetings and acquaint 
me with some of the issues. Well, I went and listened to the de 
bates. Apparently, there was a schism in the Senate on the matter 
of a president to succeed the retired great Benjamin Ide Wheeler, 
and other matters that I have forgotten. The debates seemed child 
ish to me, small stuff and not in accord with what one might expect 
from a body of mature professors. The proceedings at the first and 
subsequent meetings left me with a bad taste. 

After that, I attended very few Senate meetings. I was not inter 
ested in internal politics. But perhaps one should expect some 
violent disagreements in such a large body of professors, especially 
among those who had no contact with the outside world. 

Maunder: But the academic senate in any institution involves strong debate 
just as any deliberative body does. Sometimes this debate can get 
rather acrimonious and seem perhaps even petty in some cases. But 
that s part and parcel of democratic organization, isn t it? 

Fritz: That might be, but some of the men spoke like children instead of 

Maunder: Has this always been true of all of the Senate meetings you ve been 
to on this campus? 

Fritz: Some of them are just ordinary meetings about routine matters. 


Maunder: But surely you wouldn t judge the Academic Senate on one visit, 
would you? 

Fritz: It s pretty well known over the campus and it was also published in 
the newspapers, and Senate proceedings. 

Fry: This was what year, Professor Fritz? 
Fritz: 1919. 

Fry: Oh yes, this was the year that began what some refer to as the 
"Faculty Revolution." Yes. This was a very tumultuous year. 

Maunder: Over what? 

Fry: Over the presidency, and also over the relationship of the faculty 
to the Regents. That was a pretty brutal initiation for you, proba 
bly, Professor Fritz. 

Maunder: So you were never very active in the Academic Senate from that 
point on? 

Fritz: No. 

Maunder: Were your colleagues in forestry of a like mind, would you say? 

Fritz: I don t think they went to the Senate meetings very much until much 
later when some additions were made to the forestry faculty. 

Fry: Yes, you sure can t ignore the faculty Senate, because it has at 

least two very powerful committees that could make or break anybody. 

Fritz: I would rather wait for my promotions than to get them in that way. 

Fry: Is there any other way you can characterize the forestry faculty, 
rather than its lack of relationship to the Senate? 

Fritz: Well, the other part of that was that in those days, there was a 
hassle over public regulations. Federal regulations of lumbering 
were being pushed by a group headed by Pinchot. And this school, 
1 think to a man, didn t agree wholly with Pinchot about regulation: 
if you want regulation, Pinchot s was a heck of a way to go about 
it. And there were quite a number of foresters in the Forest Ser 
vice also who did not agree with Pinchot. We felt things like this 
should be done on a cooperative basis and that was Bill Greeley s 
big point. That s what made Greeley great but lost him the friend 
ship of Pinchot. 

Maunder: Emanuel, when did you become full professor? 

Fritz: I was made an associate professor in 1922, after I was here three 

years, and then I was made full professor in 1950. So I was on the 


Fritz: faculty for twenty-eight or twenty-nine years as an associate pro 
fessor, and for twenty-two of those I got no increase In rank or 
salary. Now you shouldn t wonder why I was doing consulting work 
on the outside: I got $325 a month (minus ten percent during the 
Depression days. The Univershy employees were the only state 
officials or employees that took a Depression cut In pay.) 

One day, casually, I asked President Sproul, "Why don t I get a pro 
motion?" And he said, "You were never recommended by the head of 
your division." 

I heard, when I was in Washington in 1938 as a consultant in the 
Interior Department for three months, that a good friend of mine 
in California, without my permission (unless it was a facetious 
one), undertook to have some recognition conferred on me here at 
the University. I don t recall what it was. Word of that must 
have gotten to Mulford because I got a letter from him telling me 
that if he didn t hear from me to the contrary, he would assume 
that I am not coming back and that I would take a job in the In 
terior Department. (I actually was offered the number two spot.) 

Well, that sort of floored me. That was assuming I wouldn t tell 
him that I m going to resign If I intend to. I d like to find a 
letter that I wrote to him about that. It must be in my files in 
Bancroft. That was not very nice of him. 

I had many other opportunities. I had three different deanships 
offered to me. I turned them down without talking with Mulford 
about it. 

Fry: Why didn t you let anybody know? I thought that half of the beauty 
of getting offers is letting your present superiors know that you 
are held in high esteem on other campuses. 

Fritz: I ll tell you. You mentioned Lovejoy yesterday. I was offered 
the deanship at Michigan State, and as a matter of fact, they 
worked awful hard on me. They were angry that I did not accept. 
While in East Lansing, I called on P. J. Lovejoy. I knew him 
well and just wanted to say Hello to him. He asked, "What are you 
doing here?" And I said, "To talk to the president of the Univer 
sity and to the dean of the College of Agriculture, and to look 
over the school at their invitation. They want me to come here as 

And he said, "Are you going to accept?" I said, "I m not going to 
accept until I can talk it over with my family." 

He laughed and said, "Oh, you re going to do some academic high 
jacking when you get back." I answered, "Not at all. I have never 
licked anybody s boots for favors in my life, and I m not going to 


Fritz: In fact, on the train going back to Berkeley, I thought it over, 

decided against it, and telegraphed my refusal. While in Michigan, 
I also called on Sam Dana, dean of the Forestry School at Ann Arbor. 
We conversed about the M.S.U. offer and at one point he said, "I 
hope you don t accept. Michigan forestry is not big enough to have 
two aggressive and competing deans." I had much respect for Sam. 
Perhaps his remark had a bearing on my negative decision. 

Maunder: What were the other schools that gave you offers? You say there 
were three. 

Fritz: Idaho and Syracuse. At Syracuse, it was at the time Nelson Brown 
thought he was going to get the deanship (I was his speaker at the 
big annual dinner they have). He was the acting dean and thought 
sure he was going to get it. I had some other information but I 
couldn t tell him. He drove me down to the train. It was a mid 
night train to Albany where I was to interview Graves, the head of 
the State Department of Education. 

Brown didn t know exactly why I was going there, but on the way 
down to the train he tapped me on the knee and said, "Fritz, I m 
going to be dean of this school, and when I m dean I want you to 
come here as the head of the Department of Utilization." I had been 
offered that position once before, back in 1922 after I was at the 
University of California only two or three years, and I turned it 
down then without telling anybody about it, although Mu I f ord knew 
about it. (He told me about it.) 

So I felt awfully bad about it because Nelson Brown was a good 
friend and a nice friendly chap. It was rather embarrassing to be 
his principal speaker there that night. 

Maunder: Who was the man appointed then? 

Fritz: Sam Spring. I was at Cornell at the time as an exchange professor, 
and I knew a little about what was going on and that I was one of 
those who was being considered. But I let Dr. Graves know at the 
start of our interview that I was not interested and I gave him my 
reasons. He had given me a long spiel about the new building named 
for Trustee Marshall, Bob Marshall s father, and that it was only 
the beginning of New York State s largess to Syracuse. The Onon- 
daga County delegation was very powerful and ambitious for Syracuse. 
It was this delegation that murdered the second forestry school at 
Cornell in about 1932, after a fresh start in 1911. 

Maunder: The Mulford papers are at Bancroft Library, aren t they? 
Fry: They are probably there in the University Archives section. 

Fritz: Well, you ll find an awful thick file on Fritz in there. I m sure 
he kept a lot of notes on me. He would never come out clean and 
straightforward and discuss things with me, so I practically Ignored 
him. Naturally, I wanted to know where I stood but things would 




leak out once in a while, and 
lot of evidence against me. 

Mu I ford was? 

I gathered that he was piling up a 








He was certainly wishing that I would resign. He made that clear. 
Now, let me see. Once I had talked with him about the fact that 
the school has no forest and we should have one because the forest 
is the forester s laboratory, and none of us will know as much as 
we ought to know to be effective teachers of forestry unless we 
have a forest where we can cut our eyeteeth in management. 

His reply was, first of all, that it would be too heavy a drain on 
our finances, without his even having gone into it. He could have 
gotten the finances at that time. And second, if we wanted to 
manage a piece of land like that we might make a mistake which would 
be a black spot on the forestry profession. That was the clincher. 
From that time on, I thought the man was either nuts or he had no 
guts. I think the latter was more true. The President of the Uni 
versity of California told me once I shouldn t repeat this told 
me that, I don t remember the exact words 

That was Sproul ? 

Sproul, yes that, well, "Mulford doesn t have a whole lot of 
courage, does he?" Something like that. 

Emanuel, what was the tenure situation here at Cal when you came 
to the school? 

I came here as an assistant professor, and I had the usual three- 
year probationary period. 

And when did you establish tenure? 

At the end of three years. Tenure comes automatically when one is 
made an associate professor. 

So you were protected to a considerable extent by that tenure, were 
you not, in the disagreements you had within the department? You 
were actual ly beyond the 

Reach? They could reach me all right. They tried to. The best way 
to reach a man is to deny him any promotions. 

In other words, you feel that there was a systematic effort made to 
discourage you. 

I m sure of It. I once asked Mulford, "Is there any future for me 
here at the School of Forestry?" And he said, "No." Now, you 
couldn t be any more definite than that. 









Had you no support from your col leagues? 

We were a very friendly group. They knew nothing about it, and I 
wouldn t take it up with them. That would be putting them In a 
bind and wouldn t be fair to them. 

And yet you did stay, and you did have offers of better positions 
elsewhere, and you apparently were considering staying in Washington, 
D.C., in the Thirties when you went back, according to a letter in 
your f i les. 

I had hardly arrived back in California in 1933 from Washington 
when let me see, it comes clear now Lee Muck wanted me to stay in 
Washington as assistant director of forestry. 

In the Department of Interior? 

Yes. And I declined. If I had advised Mulford about it, he proba 
bly would have encouraged me to accept; I don t remember all about 
that. There is some correspondence in my files on it. About two 
years later, the offer was repeated, but this time to be director 
of forestry, when Muck was moved up to be assistant to the secre 
tary, Harold I ekes. 

And you sti II said No. 

What was the overriding consideration for your refusing these other 
job offers? 

Fritz: First of all, even though I liked Washington (I still think it s a 
wonderful place to rear an American family) I had the wonderful 
opportunity as a boy to spend my summers in Washington with an aunt- 
I liked Berkeley and the University much better. 

And you had a lot of relatives right around there too. 

Yes, I was born In Baltimore, only forty miles away. Once I walked 
to Washington on a bet as to the time it would take ten and a half 

Wouldn t it have been good for your family then? 
your reasons? 

Or what were 

Because of both children. I liked the University of California, I 
fell in love with teaching, I liked the kind of students we got, 
and I was getting so much interest and support from the sawmill 
people for my lumbering course and wood technology, that I thought, 
"I can t afford to lose all that." 

About that time also I was getting deeper and deeper into redwood 
forestry, a field that I thought I was completely divorced from 
when I came to the University of California in 1919. And as for 


Fritz: the returns, the salary, we were living on it. We had some addi 
tional income plus the bits I could pick up in consulting work. 
That didn t pay very much, it never did. But it was profitable 
in two ways: It gave me a little extra money and also it gave me 
a more complete and clearer Insight Into what makes the lumber In 
dustry click and why they were so hesitant In adopting better for 
estry practices. 

Fry: You had this continuous feed-in and feed-back with industry. 

German vs. American Forestry 




You ve mentioned several men in the course of this interview who 
have been in a sense pioneers in their field and have led industry 
and forestry into taking steps that needed to be taken. Mason was 
one, Tiemann is another, and you ve commented a little bit on the 
character and the personality of these men. I m sure you ve seen 
others similar to them over the course of your career who have made 
similar contributions in other areas of leadership in forestry, 
the early foresters. 

I don t want to take your time to go over that now. 

No, but what characteristics do a I 
in common? 

of these men seem to have had 

They had an intense love of the outdoors. They were incensed over 
the way the Public Domain was being administered. The Forest Ser 
vice was set up in 1905. It was the time of Theodore Roosevelt and 
Gifford Pinchot, Ida Tarbell and others who were giving big industry 
a bad time. 

I was an engineering student at the time. Having considerable spare 
time, I read many, perhaps all, of their speeches and articles in 
the magazines. For the public speaking class, I prepared a speech 

on T. R. s and G. P. 
I was on G. P. s side 

s writings ( I sti I I have 
but at the same time 

on conservation, based 
the pencilled copy), 
could not see how every ill could be corrected as quickly as these 
energetic people seemed to think was necessary. I noted early the 
antagonism they aroused among forest land owners and operators. 
Hindsight tells me some of these fine people were motivated not 
only by bearing down on the need for better forest practices but 
also by creating for themselves the images of saviours. 

Among the more selfless_in the days before 1900 were Dr. J.~T. Roth- 
>ock of Pennsylvania/ "Dr. Samuel B. Green of Minnesota, and Dr. C. 
E. Bessey of Nebraska. These three were botanists, interestingly 

Pinchot was the principal publicist. He had wealth, charisma and 




energy, and he revelled in publicity. 

Then there were the three 




Who were they? 

C. A. Schenck, B. E. Fernow, and F. Roth. Schenck and Fernow were 
forestry trained. I don t recall if Roth had formal forestry train 
ing but, like many Germans reared in or near a forest, he had in 
grained knowledge of the forester s art. These three Germans had 
a profound influence on American forestry. (That was true also of 
French farmers who had a little woodlot. They knew the species of 
trees in terms of value and how to manage them. 1 noted that while 
soldiering in France in 1917-1919.) 

Pinchot, of course, studied forestry in France in the |890 s. But 
this, it seems to me, served him the better to handle the political 
end of forestry promotion than to manage forests. 

After we began to train foresters in the U.S. (1898 et seq.), the 
three German foresters influence increased. Except for these three, 
none of the forestry teachers knew much about forest management other 
than what they read in European books, much of which did not fit 
American forest or economic conditions. They were all German. 

To the three one should add Carl Schurz for his management of the 
Interior Department. (And incidently, Elwood, you have done some 
writing on Schenck.) If Pinchot and his young foresters had given 
Schenck, Fernow and Roth more support, American forestry on private 
lands could be much further along than it is right now. Just think 
that over, and if you want to ask a question 

Yes. Why? 

I am reminded of something my mother told me when she learned I 
would go back to college to study forestry. Her father was a 
"Jaeger" in the Black Forest, a sort of guard with hunting privi 
leges and in charge of a small forest unit. She described his nur 
sery, the planting and harvesting. The forest was handled like a 
crop to be reared and harvested. Sentiment was secondary. 

I think that what you re getting at is that Fernow, Roth, and 
Schenck were more realistic than the American first echelon of 
trained foresters. There was a difference. The first Europeans 
in America were more pragmatic in their approach to forestry, 
whereas the American group, led by Pinchot and his early cohorts, 
were more crusaders, weren t they? 

Crusaders and idealists and full of missionary zeal. I do not use 
these terms in a derogatory sense. They were fine men and did a 
great job . 

Maunder: There was a difference between the pragmatic approach and the 


Maunder: idealistic approach. Is that what you have in mind? 

Fritz: Yes. In Germany, forestry developed from immediate needs after 
centuries of warfare and exploitation. Forestry in Europe was a 
long time growing up. In America wo still had an abundance of 
primeval forests. 

Pinchot and others of that time had an idea to sell but no cus 
tomers. They had difficulty even getting their foot in the door 
to talk about their "product," if you want to call it that. The 
product would be the practice of forestry. And regrettably they 
followed methods that I don t think were particularly kosher. 
They antagonized people. It s exactly the same situation you have 
in California right now with the Sierra Club antagonizing not only 
the owners but a growing portion of the public, the local people. 

The objective was worthy but the approach to its realization was 
unwise, heavy-handed and close to socialism. The latter, socialism, 
grew stronger into the I930 s and up to about 1950. Public owner 
ship was not in accord with our spirit of American private enter 
prise, mistaken as it sometimes was and is. 

Maunder: But it seems to me that we re talking about not only two very dif 
ferent peoples, but we re talking about two very different cultural 
situations in which these two very different groups of people had to 
operate. The European forester came out of a situation in which 
the land, for the most part, had been owned by the aristocracy, 
the landed gentry, for hundreds of years. 

Fritz: Yes. 

Maunder: Barons, so to speak, had employed "Forstmeisters" to manage their 
lands for what could be cut from them in the way of timber, what 
would be gathered in the way of fuel, what would be done with them 
in the way of using them as hunting preserves, fishing grounds, 
and so on. And they had Forstmeisters to do this; they were em 
ployed people. And these Torstmeisters were like lots of other 
people in the European situation: they handed their craft on from 
son to son. 

That was a totally different situation from the one here in this 
country. We didn t have the same condition at all, and our for 
esters moved into a situation that was totally different from what 
their forebears had come from in Europe, our German mentors being 
"Daddy Roth" at Michigan and Fernow at Cornell, later at McGi I I 
(at Toronto) and Schenck down in Bi Itmore. So you ve got to take 
Into consideration the cultural differences. 

Fritz: That s the reason I said that the German foresters who came over 
here had several centuries of forestry background, while our for 
esters had to start from scratch. 







They started from scratch 
have to sell anybody, did 
In and assigned work and 
over the years to malntat 
whereas In this country a 
cloth and It had to sel I 
at all sympathetic probab 
And Pinchot and his group 

to sel I an idea. The other breed didn t 

they? They had themselves been brought 
they were perpetuated 1 1 ke a bureaucracy 
n and rarry out their professional duties, 

profession had to be created out of whole 
Its basic Ideas to a country that was not 
ly to any of these ideas In the beginning. 

therefore had a different job. 

The Germans and other Europeans had already established forestry 
and had developed management methods that are in vogue today, such 
as clear cutting and selective cutting. We didn t start them. We 
only applied them to an entirely different forest, different as to 
species and types. Our job was to convert virgin forests to man 
ageable forests. We had to learn from trial and error. 

I have been described several times, when being introduced as a 
speaker, as the inventor of the selective cutting system in the 
redwoods. That isn t correct. It was already established. In my 
early days in California, I called it selective logging, later I 
felt selective cutting was more correct. Selective logging could 
be understood to mean selective picking up (yarding) of logs al 
ready made. I merely determined that the virgin redwood forest lends 
Itself to selective cutting. That was In early 1923 when I made a 
study of second growth and found several trees on the plot that had 
survived earlier logging fires and responded with remarkable ac 
celeration In growth rate. 

In other words, the American foresters didn t have the economic 
background for American forestry that the Germans had for European 

Nor the experience of actual practice. And, as for the philosophy 
of forestry, I think that basically they were more recreation-minded 
than pragmatic in the sense that forestry should go with lumbering. 
Yet the cry for forestry was to prevent a "timber famine." We had 
no idea which system of management was best for our virgin forests. 
We had to learn, and our economic situation did not permit close 
utl I Ization. 

That wasn t true in the early days, was it, Emanuel? 

Pinchot did a great deal to have articles written on waste utiliza 
tion what you can do with the waste or how to make less; how to 
arrive at closer utilization, which was in Its infancy. There was 
one drawback. The American foresters had had no chance whatever 
in those days of managing a forest. 

You take, for example, Walter Mulford. He was about the second or 
third man to get a degree in forestry in this country. Now of course 
he had Fernow as a teacher. He also had Philip Roth as a teacher. 
He was lucky in that respect. He got his forestry from men who had 
had practical experience. 


Fritz: But when Mu I f ord was out of school, what could he, what could 
Pinchot, what could the others do without a piece of land to 
manage? Pinchot, through his family connections, was hired to 
advise George Vanderbilt on handling his Biltmore forest. In a 
few years, he handed the job over to Schenck. Just why, was never 
clear to me. 

Cornell, the first forestry school, had Fernow as the head and Fer- 
now reasoned: "The laboratory in that building over there is the 
chemical laboratory, and that s the physical laboratory. My labo 
ratory is out in the woods so I ve got to build me a laboratory. 
And to build a laboratory, all you do is buy a piece of land with 
some trees on it." 

So he was going to manage that forest land. He made a good start,, 
but he antagonized the wealthy people in that area owning great 
acreages. They were less interested in practicing forestry than 
in the preservation of their hunting and game reserves. They pro 
tested this German forester coming over and logging a slope clear. 
(Well, I think the local people were unnecessarily infuriated over 
it, because it would grow up again and be better than it was before 
in a sense. Of course, the scrubby forest is the best for hunting 
anyhow.) So the local people turned against him and, being very 
powerful in Albany, they cut off Cornell s forestry appropriation. 
That killed the Cornell forestry school. 

Fry: You are saying that the lack of experience in forest management 
was something that the American foresters had to deal with right 
from the first, that this was one big thing that they had to con 
tend with which Europeans didn t? 

Fritz: Don t let me play down the American men, the early Americans in 

forestry, because they were an unusual lot. In those days, trying 
to sell forestry was like trying to sell birth control today or 
some new re I i g i on . 

But we couldn t follow European foresters totally because they were 
already working on managed forests, and we had no managed forests 
on this side. Our first job was not to manage the forest so much 
as to convert or transform a virgin miscellaneous lot of species 
and sizes and qualities of trees (on the same acres sometimes and 
certainly on the same forty acres) into manageable forest. 

You can t manage a forest unless you have a lot of money and want 
to do it for the pleasure, like a man who has a horse farm just 
for the fun of It, with the losses tax deductible. Management 
implies, of course, the building of protection roads, the cutting 
of trees that are inferior, and utilizing the mature crop. Nowa 
days it calls for also recreation and watershed control. In other 
words, to develop a crop with not as many trees per acre, but with 
fewer and far better trees. 


Fritz: When I look back on it, especially when I think of that party for 
my eightieth birthday, I sat there wondering what In the devil 
have I ever accomplished that deserves all this, because so many 
times what I tried to do was a complete failure. And many of the 
things I suggested be tried out never were. They will some day, 
but maybe it was put up in the wrong way or the market wasn t 
ready for it or I wasn t ready for it. Maybe 1 wasn t a good 
enough salesman, I wasn t smooth enough. 

Fry: What do you think were the major mistakes made by forestry in 

general in the early days in America, now that we have the advan 
tage of hindsight? 

Fritz: Well, I m talking from personal experience over the last fifty 

years. I think I would have, if I could have afforded it myself 
or gotten somebody else to apply it, a large tract of timber which 
was to be harvested, and I would have made that an example or a 
trial, a pilot plant of what the problems are in managing it. 

I think I can say something that will epitomize this in just a 
few words. When I came here In 1919, of course, my mind was all 
set on wood technology and sawmill Ing and not on forestry. But 
then when I got out in the woods and roamed around and found some 
of this magnificent second growth, already sixty-five years old 
or more, I thought, "This is what the school should own." 

So we went back to Mulford and suggested that we ought to have a 
school forest, and I don t recall what he said to that particular 
statement, but later on after we told him of a second-growth tract 
and what it would cost, what we could learn from it, his answer 
was very definite: No, we should not own a piece of forest land 
and try to manage it because we might make a mistake, and that 
would give forestry a black eye. 

If we had such a tract now, we of the forestry faculty could have 
acquired in the forty years some second-growth management facts 
that are badly needed right now when such young stands are being 
cut on a large scale. Also we would have served timber owners 
much earlier as competent advisors. More important, we would have 
learned early how dependent the forester Is on markets. We for 
esters represented ourselves as knowing how a forest should be 
managed! Yet we still do research work and hold seminars to find 
out what can be done and how much it will cost. 

Maunder: But you take the Harvard forest for example. Here was a school of 
forestry which did have a tract of land, and they had the vision 
of the future of how to manage that land. Now you go back there 
and talk to Hugh Routh who has been with it from the very begin 
ning, and he ll point out to you: Well, we had the wrong vision. 
Our whole plan was based on false notions. What we do, we do in 
terms_pf what we understand about the market and the needs of our 
"own times. We cannot foretell what the conditions are go mg to be 


Maunder: forty, fifty, sixty years from now when the crop we re managing 
comes to maturity. 

Fritz: He is right. But Harvard learned that poor soil does not 

permit what one can do on better soil. Harvard certainly knows 
that every cultural activity costs money and that this cost can 
not be returned for some years. For example: I have been asked 
often why I don t recommend thinning some of our dense redwood 
young growth. My answer always was: Yes, the forest should be 

thinned but if 
(cut) out, you 
the future. 

you can t get the cost back from what is thinned 
are setting up an intolerable financial burden for 

Of course, we should have had experimental thinnings here and there 
to learn what good the thinnings would accomplish, how much it would 
cost, and what can be done with resulting debris. Some of our young 
redwood stands are up to 110 years old. They came up without help. 
Had intensive management been possible, these stands should have 
been thinned several times and at unknown intervals. 

Thinning is an economic problem. There are good signs that it 
will be solved when the number of new pulp mills require more chips 
than mill and woods leftovers can supply. Or the small logs derived 
from thinnings may some day suit the needs of small mill men for 
lumber if they are suitably equipped. 

A_ School of_ Forestry a_t Stanford? 

Maunder: Were you ever accused of trying to start a competitive school of 
forestry at Stanford? 

Fritz: I don t know that I was ever so accused. No one in his right mind 
would go out and try to get a school started somewhere else in com 
petition with his own school. The suspicion would come into his 
mind right away that Fritz wants to be dean of it. The deanship 
of any school is the last thing I would ever want. In my opinion, 
a deanship is pretty much of a very well paid clerkship, and I hate 
to see some men take a deanship because of the prestige that goes 
with it. I feel their usefulness in their own specialty fias been 
lost. You already know that I turned down several deanship offers 
from other schools. 

Now as to your question: There was indeed an effort made to start 
a forestry school at Stanford. 

Fry: There was? 

Fritz: Yes. John Hemphill, who was the general manager of the large Sugar 
Pine Lumber Company at Fresno, came to me once and asked he either 
came to me or he spoke to me when we met somewhere. I used to visit 


Fritz: his mill a great deal. It was a great mill but cost too much. He 
might have written me about it, in which case my letter file should 
contain copies of the correspondence. That was way back In about 
1925 or 26 that he was sounding me out as to the need for another 
forestry school in California. Now as you know, in the early I920 s 
there was a Pinchot battle for public regulation of lumbering. The 
Capper report resulted from it. 

Perhaps Hemphill thought that his idea would be a counter against 
the Capper findings and a counter offensive against other forestry 
schools, siding with Pinchot. Actually the schools were cool toward 
Pinchot on federal regulation. 

Fry: Do you think then that he thought that U.C. was too oriented toward 
Capper-type forestry? 

Fritz: No. This school was not in favor of the Capper thing at all. 
Fry: But you felt that he_ thought this way? 

Fritz: That he might have thought this way, yes. Hemphill was a graduate 

of Stanford University and had been secretary to President David 
Starr Jordan. Apparently the two of them were still on very good 

terms (I m sure Jordan was still there). And if he had ever taken 

that to Jordan, that would have killed it right away because Jordan 

must have known about that gentleman s agreement between U.C. and 

Now, 1 personally felt this way about it: At that time there was 
no need for another school in California. Second, that if there 
were a need for another school, Stanford would be an idea! place 
because the students would be able to practically walk to a forest 
for their field work, whereas U.C. students have to go a couple of 
hundred miles before they can even see a good forest. We are at a 
great disadvantage in that respect but more than make up for it by 
having a ten-week summer camp. 

Nothing ever came of the Hemphill idea. First of all, it was none 
of my business, and I would have had to go to Professor Mulford 
and tell him that this thing was brewing. Maybe I did I don t 

Fry: Did you talk to anybody in the College of Agriculture here? 
Fritz: I don t think so. I had no personal interest in it. 

Fry: Oh I see. But did you encourage Hemphill to check with the presi 
dent of Stanford on this? 

Fritz: I don t know. That s too far back and I wasn t interested in get 
ting involved in it anyway. I now frequently have dinner with a 
Stanford group at Bohemian Club. They are all very good friends 


Fritz: and we talk about the University of California Forestry School 

(you know there s a lot of kidding between the two universities), 
all very friendly. They will make some comment, like, the forestry 
school should have been at Star ord, or something like that. "You 
fellows haven t any forests over there and we have," and I would 
have to agree. 

I personally think it would have been a far better thing if the 
school had been placed at Stanford rather than In Berkeley, because 
of the proximity of a forest over there. And incidentally, Stan 
ford University owned a lot of timber, second growth, the kind of 
timber that American foresters of our time should have been working 
in long ago to have everything all ready with data by the time the 
second growth was really merchantable and needed when the old growth 
was nearly gone. That time is now here and we haven t got that 

Herbert Hoover s brother what was his name, Theodore? owned a lot 
of forest land on the peninsula not very far from Palo Alto. One 
day Professor Mulford told us in a faculty meeting that they had 
been given the chance of accepting that property. It was to be a 
gift to the University of California Forestry School. None of us 
knew anything about it. At least, I didn t, and I m sure none of 
the others did. Later, Mulford told us that he had been offered 
this property and that he had declined It. 

Fry: v Do you know why? 

Fritz: Because it would be too much of a drain on our finances. 

Fry: To keep it up, you mean? 

Fritz: To carry on the research work and to maintain and administer it. 

Maunder: Wouldn t it have provided some income that would have taken care 
of that? 

Fritz: Eventually, yes. That was a heartbreaker. That must have been 

around in the late 1920 s or early 1930 s when that offer was made. 
I wish you could find Mulford s papers, the official papers, about 
that. I have never seen them. Incidentally, during the depression 
when the federal government set up work camps C.C.C. and W.P.A. 
Mulford apparently finally succumbed to approving a school forest. 
He approached the lumber industry for a gift of cutover land. That s 
the forest the school got and what is now called Blodgett Forest. 

Now that you brought up the Stanford subject, I should add that about 
ten years ago, during a conversation with a lumber Industry man, a 
Stanford engineering graduate, he asked If it would be a good idea 
If he should promote a lumber manufacturing professorship at Palo 
Alto. I encouraged him. With so much lumbering In the West, at least 
one university engineering school should give more than the usual 


Fritz: three-unit course given by forestry schools to sawmill ing opera 
tions. Most forestry schools pay adequate attention to logging, 
but sawmill ing is really a purely engineering undertaking. 



Second Growth I nvestlgatlon 

Maunder: Can you give us a little background on your first Interest In the 

Fritz: Everyone is interested in the redwoods. If he has never seen them, 
he want? some day to see them; once he has seen them, he wants to 
see them again. Because of my sawmill course, I had to go through 
the redwood country to visit the mills; that was my job. I wasn t 
there to study the woods, or even to work out the forestry. That 
started after 1923. I would visit a sawmill and if there was any 
time left, I d go out to the woods just to look around to see where 
the logs came from. 

It was a time when preservationists were becoming active in saving 
the best groves. The Save-the-Redwoods League had already been or 
ganized and had preserved several fine groves. There was so much 
old-growth redwood then that there appeared no difficulty in getting 
owners to sell. But it was a very hard job prying money loose from 
people and agencies that had it. 

I was very fortunate early in 1920 when Mr. Edward James, represent 
ing Sage (.and and Improvement Company of Albany, New York, and his 
son and a surveyor were going up to the redwoods by automobile on 
timber business and invited me to go along. I had been to the red 
woods once before by railroad in 1915, but never before by automobile, 

Mr. James later became a member of the State Board of Forestry. He 
was a very interesting and helpful man. He lived in Santa Rosa, 
looked after the Sage properties, buying and selling timber. En 
route, he told me much about the redwoods and what goes on, and in 
troduced me to a number of people so that I got a running start 
there. The road was dusty, narrow and crooked, but very scenic. 
Mr. James had data on most of the fine groves along the highway. 
We stopped at many of them, visited split-products operations, and 
a shingle mi I I . 

In 1921, during the regionwlde reforestation efforts, the companies 
had decided to reforest their cutover lands. The University, under 
Professor Woodbridge Metcalf, helped out with methods of planting, 
collecting seed, and rearing seedlings. I had nothing to do with it. 
It was out of my line at the time. However, it was important to 
know what kind of lumber the young growth would produce. The only 
way to find out was to cut some of the second growth and run it 
through the mill. This second growth was already sixty or sixty- 
five years old. In 1922, Woody Metcalf and I had come across some 
fine second growth on Big River, owned by the Union Lumber Company. 


Fritz: In 1923, David T. Mason, at the time the advisor of the redwood 

owners, arranqed for the cutting ,of a small area on Union s land. 
It turned out to be only seven-tenths of an acre. I was In charge 
of the study so I saw the produc from the stump to and through 
the mill. The company furnished the falters, and I brought a for 
estry assistant. As the trees were all felled and bucked, we would 
scramble over their trunks and stumps to get a Jot of data for what 
we call "stem analysis." It was the first one made by the School, 
and the data has been very useful ever since. 

The logs were milled in the Mendocino Lumber Company mill at Men- 
doclno (subsidiary of Union Lumber Company). The biggest log was 
only twenty-four inches at the small end, the smallest, about eight 
inches. The sawmill carriage had very low head blocks for handling 
large logs. Some of my logs were so small that they had to be held 
against the knees with a cant hook. It took two or three days to 
mill the logs. The lumber was piled in the yard for seasoning. One 
truck load was taken to the Union Lumber Company plant at Fort Bragg 
for kiln dry i ng. 

It was an extremely Interesting and revealing experience. I wrote a 
report but it was published only In local newspapers. In the Univer 
sity forestry files, It is designated Project 688. The quality of 
the lumber was disappointing. That from top logs was better than 
that from butt logs because the knots were sound. As to figure and 
color, it resembled the coarsest grain in old growth. Far more im 
portant (at least in my opinion) was the discovery that three of the 
130 trees cut on the 0.7 acre plot were relics of the original for 
est cut in 1858. These three trees were then under twenty-four inches 
in diameter on the stump. These three escaped death in the slash 
fires. Without the competition of the trees that were cut, these 
three experienced an accelerated growth rate. I think the largest 
of the three was about forty inches or more in diameter. Their IUJP- 
ber was coarse-grained but mostly free of knots. The report draws 
special attention to these three trees because they indicated that 
redwood forests should be cut on a selective basis. The machinery 
then used in logging made such cutting impractical at the time. 

The owner of the lumber company was C. R. Johnson, the grandfather 
of the present president, C. Russell Johnson. He was a very fine 
man and to him I owe a great deal for his sympathetic help. He 
was a real leader and a gentleman. 

Maunder: What year was this? 

Fritz: 1923. His logging bosses, all old-timers, thought the study was all 

a lot of foolishness. They declared that it was impossible to grow 

redwoods from seed, that they always came from sprouts, though the 

evidence was right there in front of them that redwood does come 

from seeds as well as sprouts. Also they said the lumber would be 

no good, that it would fall apart when it was dry, all of which was 

proved fallacious. We were too far ahead of our time, I think, and 


Fritz: I was asked not to publish the report because it might interfere 
with the planting program. That was a big mistake on my part. 

Anyway, as a result of that experiment, I returned a few weeks later 
to relocate a stand across the river which was of the same age and 
which Woody Metcalf and I saw and measured In 1922. In 1923 I made 
a permanent study plot of it. It has become known as the Wonder 
Plot. In 1958, its trees were one hundred years old. 

Maunder: Did Dave Mason sell certain redwood companies on supporting re 
search that he was generally overseeing, and then bring you and 
Metcalf into it as "subcontractors" to do certain things? 

Fritz: Metcalf and I were the first of our faculty to see this fine young 

growth in 1922 and told Mason about it. It was my idea that Mason s 
planting program should be preceded by learning what kind of lumber 
young trees would make. But Mason got the company to make a cutting 
possible. He was not on the plot while I worked on it. It was my 

At the University, we were allowed one semester for teaching and one 
semester for research, and in addition, since 1934, I had the sum 
mer off also. (I was on academic status.) But at that particular 
time, 1923, I was on an eleven-month basis. 

It was clearly the honest opinion of the redwood owners and opera 
tors, and especially the local people, that young growth redwood 
would not produce good lumber. In order to get good lumber, it was 
felt, you have to raise a tree to be a thousand years old. It was 
a common expression: "It takes a thousand years to mature a red 
wood." That, of course, was altogether fallacious. 

The labor of felling, bucking and yarding was all done under the 
direction of the Union Lumber Company s logging boss, Ed Boyle, one 
of the great logging characters of the redwood industry. But when 
it came to how high the stump should be, how long the log should 
be, that was my job. 

Maunder: When did you do this work? 

Fritz: In the spring semester of 1923. I started the job in early March, 
collecting the data on the logs. Yarding the logs to the railroad 
track and thence to the mi I I took another week. Then the sawmi II 
work began I think in early April. This is my recollection. It s 
all in a report in the University forestry library files. 

Fry: And I believe you said a copy is over in the School of Agriculture? 
Fritz: Yes, and I have one copy. The Union Lumber Company has a copy. 

Maunder: Did the Union Lumber Company pay you or the University anything 
for this work? 

I 10 

Fritz: No. There was no question of payment. None was expected and they 

offered none. The Union Lumber Company provided the land, the trees 
and the labor. Some of their own foresters would come out and help 
us sometimes. It was a fine example of cooperation between the 
company and the University. 

Maunder: Did you do all of the data collecting? 

Fritz: All of the data was collected by myself and my assistant. 

Maunder: Who was your assistant? 

Fritz: That was Leonard Kellogg. He s now a recently retired professor 

of forestry at Iowa State College, very able and very conscientious 
and a meticulously accurate worker. 

The report incidentally showed that the redwood lumber produced 
by a sixty-five year old tree, grown under natural conditions with 
out any help of man and with no form of forestry management, was 
very knotty, very coarse grained. This was to be expected from 
the size of the trees and their age, and the high percentage of 
sap wood. Sap wood ranged up to three inches wide, which is no 
wider than it is in an old growth tree at the maximum, but on 
small logs like ours, a three-inch ring of sap wood is a big per 

Maunder: Well, would you say that the results that came from your research 
supported or refuted your contentions about the value of second 
growth redwood as a good commercial species? 

Fritz: Without any intention to brag about, before we put an axe into the 
trees, I deduced that the lumber would be coarse and very knotty. 
It was very obvious. The branches or stubs of these 65-year-old 
trees were sticking out all the way down to the ground. Dea3 
branch stubs make for rotten knots, but in other U.S. regions, such 
common grade lumber was accepted when the old growth gave out. So 
why should not the same hold true for second growth redwood when 
the old growth has given out, as it must some day. However, by 
leaving undersize trees standing after logging, they would produce 
clear grades in considerable volume. The wider growth rings of 
the accelerated growth portion of each log would serve many of 
the uses that are now met by the finer grained of the old growth. 

When the lumber people looked at the boards we sawed, they were 
disappointed over its grade. It was difficult to sell them the 
idea of not making comparisons between old growth and young growth 
lumber but to project an image fifty years hence when their old 
growth was used up and lumber would be still I n_ demand. I never 
expected to see that situation myself buf~here It Is, and we are 
already dipping Into the young forests for logs in significant 
volume and having no difficulty getting a very good price for it. 

The selective cutting program, if it had been started earlier and 

Emanuel Fritz in second-growth redwood on Smith Place, 
Mitchell Heights, above Ryan Slough, near Eureka. 
Photograph by Harold Olson, August 24, 1950. 

Fritz: followed by a firm policy in the front office, each operator In 
terested in permanence would now have not only young trees on each 
cutover acre but a handsome volume of upper q n ade lumber yield 
from the residual trees scattered throughout the property. One 
operator Is already In such good sha ( <e after thirty years of 
selective cutting as to be able to continue lumbering In per 
petuity and at his present rate. This is the Union Lumber Company. 
The other large operators are in position to cut continuously but 
at a reduced rate unti I the young growth has caught up. 

I am reminded of what one of the engineering professors used to 
tell us: "Never sell an idea short." In other words, it may be 
untimely, it may be way ahead of its time, but all it needs is 
some additional work, some change of the economic situation or, 
as in the case of the gas turbine, until a metal is perfected to 
withstand the terrific corrosive effect of the jet stream and the 
high heat. 

Maunder: In other words, the redwood market of the future, just as in the 
case of the gas turbine engine, is going to be determined to a 
great extent by technological change and new inventions and a more 
favorable economic situation. 

Fritz: Technological and economic. I have no feeling whatever that wood 
will ever go off the market, and I can give you the reasons why in 
a very few words. Redwood, as an example, is no different than 
any other wood. Some of your finest black walnut nowadays comes 
from farm-raised trees, coarse grained but the market buys it. 
It pays several times more for it right now than it paid for the 
beautiful stuff of the old days, the virgin stuff. 

The market doesn t need upper grades for every item or for every 
product. It can get along with the lower grades. So we are now 
actually flooding the market with upper grades and getting a lower 
price than their quality should command. 

Fry: So what you discovered was that it s true that the grade of lumber 
was much lower in the younger trees, but that it could still be 
utilized by industry. Did you distribute these results to industry 
or did Dave Mason? 

Fritz: Yes. It was distributed in a typewritten sheet, and it was pub 
lished in the local newspapers. 

Fry: Did you get any feedback on this? 

Fritz: Some. Each man who got a copy, especially those who got a copy 
of the full typed report, stated that it was "very interesting." 
But the reaction was uniform, and I should say unanimous, that it 
will be a long time before we can market that kind of lumber. That 
left me with the only real argument: that it takes a long time to 
mature a merchantable tree and in order to have even this knotty 

I 12 

Fritz: second growth, forty or fifty years hence, you had better start 
growing It now. Well, that, I think, sank In. I used to use 
forty years as the time some mills could see the end of what they 
then owned. It wasn t very long after that that they began to 
leave a lot of seed trees and taue ar> entirely different atti 
tude toward fires. That was in the late I930 s when selective 
cutting was undertaken. Thanks also to tractors which made it 

It s forty years ago that I guessed forty years, so there was just 
a difference of ten years in there. 

Fry: Forty years for the old growth to last? 

Fritz: Yes, providing they were logging it at the same rate. I missed 

the boat by a wide margin because first of al I the war came on, 

and the poorest grade of lumber was plenty satisfactory for many 

And small mills are a part of the picture. A lot of that second 
growth was owned by local families or nonresidents, generally by 
inheritance, who had no interest whatever In lumber. But they were 
pleased to get something back from their land. A number of these 
smal I -owner second growth properties were logged clean. When the 
war ended, the market collapsed but revived a few years later when 
the housing and industrial markets boomed. 

And the other part was that I didn t give enough credit to the in 
genuity of engineers and to the possible changes in economic condi 
tions in those factors which would permit the lumber manufacturer 
to utilize his old trees much more cfosely. It was called close 
utl I Ization. 

In the early days of forestry, when I was still a student and even 
before, there were many articles written about the waste in the 
woods and at the mills. Lumbermen were excoriated as wasteful tim 
ber barons. And we heard such terms as "reduce waste," and "utl- 
"llze more closely." It was absolutely impossible In those clays be 
cause you and I and everybody else would have spurned some of the 
lumber that comes out of an old growth, thousand-year-old tree. It 
Is not all peaches and cream. Some of It is as bad as a soft 
tomato, and for the same reasons. 

Fry: What were they referring to when they wanted you to "utilize it 
more closely" then? 

Fritz: Not long ago in one of the evening park lectures with tourists 

gathered around the fire, the nature guide had given them a talk, 
and somebody In the audience asked, "Why doesn t somebody pass a 
law agpinst all these waste burners up there?" (This was in the 
redwood country, by the way.) And the naturalist said, "Well, 
they re very wasteful people. They waste a lot of lumber." 

Fritz: Another question was raised, "Well, why don t they make something 
out of it?" He said, "They re not interested." Just like that. 
That man knew nothing about the situation. 

The whole fact Is that lumbermen arc business men, and if they 
could have made a nickel from every dollar they would have to in 
vest In utilizing that waste, they would have done so because that 
nickel was not really a nickel made but was really about twenty 
cents made because It cost them money to dispose of that refuse. 
Also the fire insurance was affected by what kind of a fire they 
had for burning up this refuse. 

You and I wouldn t buy the small stuff anyway. Some of the stuff 
that they threw into the burner was short and narrow. Builders, 
when they ordered a load of lumber, wanted boards sixteen feet long 
because it divided evenly into the common sizes used in building. 
But now the mills will save a piece only one foot long and two 
inches wide. Those pieces are then rebuilt into wide boards that 
can be made a mile long If there is room to handle them. From the 
standpoint of wood technology, I would say that those boards are 
superior in utility to a one-piece board: they are less likely to 
warp and they are less likely to split. The glue joint is stronger 
than the wood Itself. 

The reasons for the change were the Improved economic situation, 
the development of better adhesives, and better machines. Lumber 
prices were better too. The user gave up some of his objection to 
knots, coarse grain or other factors that ones caused sales resis 
tance. Even a large portion of the bark Is used. (Ironically, 
conservationists who once labelled lumbermen as wastrels now call 
them so greedy that even scraps are sold!) 

Fry: What kind of utilization was in the minds of the people back in 
the Twenties when they called for "closer utilization"? 

Fritz:" They had no idea. But it was politics to play up waste. Very 

few consumers know what the manufacturer s problems are. Nobody 
knew much about it. Foresters talked about it a lot, but didn t 
thlnk it through. In the days when the spread between the price 
of a perfect board and a knotty one was small, the buyer often 
selected the better board even though one of lower grade and price 
would have served the purpose. 

Of course, the saws could be made thinner, but no steel had been 
developed to carry the great strains. A large part of our lumber 
is made by small sawmills, operated on small capital and unable 
to afford the price of band head saws. Their I nserted-tooth cir 
cular head rigs make about fifteen percent more sawdust than a 
band ml I I . 

Maunder: Even today would you say that this is a factor? 

Fritz: Why, sure. Might be a good thing to penalize an operator buying 









federal timber and sawing into boards on circular head rigs. 

In other words, by saving on the kerf, there would be a tremendous 
saving on forests? 

Not only the kerf, but in a lot of these small circular sawmills, the 
man who is operating the saw is like a truck driver who owns his own 
truck. He doesn t even spend Saturdays and Sundays to repair his 
truck if he can get a load to haul on these days. . He cuts corners 
and takes chances. So the small sawmill man can t stop unless his 
equipment breaks down. 

The situation was especially bad during World War (I. I drove my 
car very slowly behind many a truck of lumber. The boards were 
often badly manufactured one edge thinner 1han the other, some 
overly thick, some offset because the top saw was not well aligned 
with the lower saw. 

Well, what about the standards? 
that time, is that right? 

They were just not applicable at 

The standards were good, but let s look at 
man s lumber does not go directly out into 
of it does now that is 

it this way. That small 
the trade. (A large part 

in the form of two-by-fours and two-by-eights. 
That s practically the only part that s a production line product.) 
They got by because their lumber went to dealers who had a planing 
mill and kilns even, for surfacing and seasoning. Many boards sawn 
for one inch rough would not dry or plane out to the market thick 
ness standard. 

What did Professor Krueger think about the results of your work on 
second growth? Did he help write this up? 

No. He wasn t on the staff at that time. He was actually in the 
logging business at the time. Later at the University of California 
he taught logging. 

Oh yes, this was when he was working for Pacific, I guess. 

Pacific Lumber Company and later, Korbel. He was the only one on 
the staff who had any practical experience in forestry and logging. 

Did he pick up these results and try to work with them and influence 
his own company? 

He was a logging engineer. When the reforestation was undertaken, 
he was put in charge of it. His own company, The Pacific Lumber 
Company, had him plant up some of their cutover lands with the 
seedlings raised in the nurseries that Mason had set up. Later 
he went back into logging but this time at Northern Redwood Company 
at Korbel . 


Did this lead to anything else in your further research? 

I 15 









I never did very much research. You can call that research if you 
wish, but ! wouldn t call It that. It s just going out and getting 
some data. It Isn t research In the sense as used on the campus. 
I never regarded myself as a scientist or as a researcher. I think 
I was more of an experimenter. 

Did your investigation on the Union Lumber Company s lands have any 
significance in getting you interested In redwoods? 

Yes. In fact, I had no business out in the woods then. I was not 
expected to go into the woods unless I wanted to see where the logs 
came from. My teaching job made visits to sawmills, and the yards, 
and the factories desirable. I knew nearly every sawmill in the 
state and the principals, pine and redwood. But at that time, I 
had no desire, no intention, no thought of ever making redwood any 
kind of a specialty. 

It is true that I spent more time on redwood, but I spent a great 
deal of time on the other woods also, because as a wood technologist, 
I had to know them all. It was very useful information and good 
experience for a teacher expected to be knowledgable about wood, 
Its manufacture and uses. 

Your real work 
that right? 

in redwoods didn t begin until the Thirties, Is 

I didn t begin seriously until about 1934. But I had gotten inter 
ested in the redwood forest. There were very few foresters there 
at the time, most of them hired through Mason by the companies pri 
marily to conduct the nurseries and to set up the plantations. You 
can probably get a record of that rather large and extensive pro 
gram of reforestation from Mason or from Metcalf. 

Do you credit Dave with starting the redwood people to thinking 
seriously about forestry? 

The redwood people were behind the eight ball. In the discussions 
between industry and others, particularly Mason, they probably 
thought they had to do something about It to meet the save-the- 
redwoods campaign. Dave also helped In making the campaign for 
parks. I think the League retained him for a study. 

Was this before or after Dave 
practice for himself in about 

left the faculty? 

He went into 

Yes. He had been a professor here from 1915 to 1917, then he was 
In military service, after which he was with the federal govern 
ment in Washington with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. He or 
ganized the timber end of the Bureau. 

He came back to Cal briefly In 20 and left in the spring of 21. 
I could be a year off in my dates. 

I 16 





He decided to quit teaching. I think he had pretty much the same 
experience here that I had in those early years. He could, as well 
as I, maybe even better, see that lumbering is the tall of the doq 
In forestry; nnd he was a sort of a practical fellow and had spent 
a lot of time studying the lumber Industry on an original project 
In the Inland Empire In northern Idaho and the adjoining parts of 
Montana and Oregon and Washington. I was one of his assistants at 
the time, as I told you. 

What I was getting at was, 
credited with arousing the 
land management problems? 

to what extent do you think he can be 
industry to doing something about its 

The campaign to save the redwoods served as a good pry to gain in 
terest. He did a great deal to promote reforestation. There wasn t 
much else that could have been done. The machinery that was in 
vogue at the time was very powerful and very fast, and the way had 
to be cleared from the stump to the landing, leaving the land bare. 

This was the day of highly destructive logging. 

It was called destructive, but It was actually about the best you 
could do under the circumstances. The old ox teams couldn t supply 
the logs es fast as the market needed the lumber. One man developed 
a donkey engine suited to logging, another man tried out wire rope, 
another man tried out this and that, so that it was a natural evolu 

And Mason came in at a time when the donkey engines were made even 
larger and more powerful, and he tried to get them to save some 
strips along ridges to serve as seed trees. It was a logical thing 
for a forester to think of, but (and this isn t generally under 
stood by the public) in those days when even a forester would make 
a suggestion, he had to realize and be aware that he was talking to 
people to whom forestry was merely a cuss word, and to whom a for 
ester was a persona non grata, a trouble maker. So a man had to 
put up his arguments to the industry with considerable cleverness, 
and I would say also a tentatl veness. It took a smooth talker to 
put it over. 

It is not generally known that the redwood operators were early 
conscious of the need for reforestation. In the early 1900 s, they 
planted eucalyptus. That tree was getting a great deal of public 
notice because of land promoters. Some of those plantations still 
stand. One company Caspar planted California laurel and California 
(false) nutmeg. The Union Company thought the hardwoods should be 
encouraged and made quite a study of possible products. Famed 
botanist, Willis L. Jepson, also did some of the early missionary 
work. - 


Projects With the U.S. Forest Service 

Maunder: Emanuel, I was reviewing a file of your correspondence this morning 
which deals primarily with your rek-Mons with T. D. Woodbury and 
others in San Francisco in the Regional Office of the U.S. Forest 
Service there; and this file shows to what extent in principally 
1937 and 38 research was going forward in the Forest Service in 
the redwood region. The file shows your part in all this and your 
close association and contact with Woodbury and others. 

The papers show that a lot of goodwill existed between you and 
Woodbury, but they also show that there was a good deal of feel 
ing of hostility between you and Director Ed Kotok, here on the 
campus in the California Forest and Range Experiment Station. 
Indeed, it appears that you preferred at this time to do your work 
in cooperation with the forest people in San Francisco rather than 
with the people in the Experiment Station here in the building. 

Fritz: Does that concern setting up a project? 

Maunder: In the redwoods a selective logging experiment. 

Fritz: Selective cutting. Yes, I remember that. 

Maunder: And slash burning, that sort of thing. 

Fritz: Yes. That got me Into a lot of trouble with the lumber people. 

Maunder: Well, in your note attached to this file, which is evidently a 

later appraisal of it that you have made in recent years, you say 
this: "This file records a good cross section of (I) the diffi 
culties in getting industry to become aware of its responsibilities, 
(2) genuine Interest on the part of the principals of the larger 
companies in forestry practices, (3) the ill will on the part of 
the socialistic fringe of the U.S. Forest Service and those who are 
hell-bent for federal regulation, and (4) constant harassment of 
the industry and of its forestry consultant to handicap progress 
of forestry, to keep the industry looking bad before the public." 

Fritz: What date is that? 

Maunder: Your note is not dated. 

Fritz: This must have been in the Forties. 

Maunder: That s your handwriting in the Forties period, is that right? 

Fritz: Yes. 

Maunder: Well, it s quite obvious here in this exchange of correspondence 
that you had a number of projects going in close cooperation with 




men in top management in the industry, in particular Leonard Ham 
mond of the Hammond Lumber Company and Mr. C. R. Johnson of the 
Union Lumber Company. 

Now at one point in the correspondei ce here, Woodbury writes a 
letter to you on May 24, 1937, In which he states that the Re 
gional Office Is ". . . eager to give some helpful service in the 
redwood region," that he is w.i I I i ng to insert this project, the 
private forestry project on Hammond lands, into the program of 
the Regional Office. They would be compiling logging and milling 
data, and he says in his reply to you here, that previous studies 
have been made in this same general area of subject matter for the 
Amador Timber Company and the California Door Company, and that a 
logging engineer by the name of John Berry had been involved in 

That was the brother of Swift Berry. 

And that Berry, in attending a logging conference, had met you and 
had asked you to get Interested parties at the logging conference 
together, so that they could talk about this project. Do you re 
member that particular matter? 

That particular detail I don t remember, but I remember the thing 
in its broad scale. What is it you wanted to know? 

Maunder: Well, I just wanted to know a little bit abo-jt your relationship 

with Woodbury and your appraisal of the man and the job that he did. 
I want to ask you one or two questions in regard to it. You were 
urging that the job be handled through. the Regional Office of the 
Forest Service rather than the California Forest and Range Station, 
which had already done surveys of a similar nature and had all of 
the data that had to do with this. Now was this a deliberate ef 
fort on your part to avoid doing the work through Ed Kotok because 
of your feelings of antagonism? 

Fritz: No. Kotok wouldn t be doing it anyway. 

Maunder: Well, it would be somebody under Kotok. I realize it wouldn t be 

Fritz: It was an economic study , wasn t it, rather than a mechanical study? 
It was a study that Mr. Burnett of Hammond Lumber Company~asked me 
aTJouT one d ay 7~and~ Woodbury was the one man I could deal with in the 
Forest Service Office. He was the Assistant Regional Forester In 
charge of silviculture or management. He had a very able man over 
there, Charles Tebbe, who had made such a study In Slskiyou County. 
It was a county study, and I was trying to get them to make one In 
the Humboldt redwoods and to assign Tebbe to It. 

One way to get the Forest Service to undertake a project which you 
would think would help speed up interest in forestry was to let it 


Fritz: be known that you were going to make such a study under the aegis 

of the University. They d be over right away. Woodbury once wrote 
to me: I suggest you don t go into this because we have it on our 

I had almost forgotten about this project. Mr. Burnett, vice presi 
dent of Hammond Lumber Company, asked me i f we could undertake a 
countrywide economic study of the forest resource situation. I 
doubt that Burnett knew of the Siskiyou study by Tebbe. I believe 
it was original with him. He was interested in such matters. 

I could not handle the study and the school did not have the funds 
to support !t. But I either wrote or talked to Woodbury that we 
have been requested to consider making such e study. It was then 
that Woodbury asked me to lay off, because he had the same thing 
in mind. Naturally, I encouraged him to undertake it. Although 
I kept after him, nothing ever came of it. 

You said earlier the project concerned selective cutting. You con 
fused me by bringing in the Hammond Company project. There was 
Indeed another project on the lands of the Do I beer and Carson Lum 
ber Company, on Elk River. It came about this way: After the pas 
sage of the National Recovery Act under which, in Article X, the 
lumber industry agreed to leave Its cutover lands in a productive 
condition, the Industry was to be its own policeman. I was asked 
to be advisor to the redwood people in effectuating practices which 
would implement the purpose of Article X. 

Maunder: Here a a letter from you to Woodbury, dated May 15, 1937. "Dear 
Woodbury, Inasmuch as the Hammond Redwood Company plans to begin 
logging its Eel River tract sometime early this fall" (That would 
be fall, 1937) "and inasmuch as also the president, Mr. L. C. 
Hammond, is very much interested in making this a sort of proving 
ground for selective logging, I think it offers an unusual oppor 
tunity for some cooperative work between your office of Public and 
Private Cooperation and the Company. In fact, I think it is such 
a good opportunity that you cannot afford to pass it up. 

"At any rate if you are interested please let me know so that I can 
take It up with the Company. Captain El am is at present making a 
topographic map on which the final logging plan will be based. 
Please let me know about this as soon as possible because logging 
plans will have to be prepared before very long. I think this is 
a job for your office rather than the Experiment Station." 

Fritz: Now that you read that letter, It all comes back to me. As soon as 
you mentioned that tract it was a five thousand acre tract, wasn t 
it? This was not connected with the county study I just described 
to you . 

Maunder: I don t know. It doesn t say. 


Fry: On Eel River, near Camp Grant. 

Fritz: That was a different project. I had worked on a tract adjoining 
the Hammond tract and belonging to the Pacific Lumber Company. 
Knowing that general area, I though* it to be an ideal area to get 
selective cutting data. Incidentally, that tract was the one I 
thought the Forest Service should have bought In the days when it 
wanted a redwood national forest. It was only five thousand acres, 
and it would have been under operation in 1937. They would have 
gotten necessary data right away, data we badly needed, then and 

Maunder: Why didn t they? 

Fritz: That s a good question. When the Save-the-Redwoods League learned 
that the U.S.F.S. was examining a tax delinquent tract in Del Norte 
County, Newton Drury called a meeting. We were talking about it 
over here in Berkeley: Newton Drury, S. B. Show, T. D. Woodbury, 
E. I. Kotok, and maybe several others. The Forest Service had ig 
nored the Save-the-Redwoods League. We felt the U.S.F.S. should 
have learned what the League had in mind to acquire for parks. 
The acquisition program of the League could have been seriously 
affected by the Forest Service s purchase pians. 

The meeting was held on the ground floor of tne Bank of America 
Building in Berkeley, and I remember recommending to Show and Wood- 
bury, "Why don t you try to buy that five thousand acre piece of 
Hammond s and make that a part of your national forest; because 
if you really want to do what you say you want to do, which is to 
get the data to help the lumber industry to do a better job In log 
ging, there s your opportunity." 

Fry: Was this in a meeting with Newton Drury of the Save-the-Redwoods 

Fritz: Yes. They said, "We can do better if we go to Del Norte County. 
We can get far more acres for less money." So I said, "How is 
that going to help you in getting information to help forestry in 
the industry? By the time that Del Norte (Ward Estate) property 
can be opened for logging, the end of the old growth will be so 
close that the figures won t have any meaning." 

That s what actually happened. It was twenty years before they 
actually started to log that land and then in a very small way. 
Nothing has come from the studies of actual use to the redwood in 
dustry in logging old growth that it did not already know. 

Fry: I don t understand why it takes longer to log it in Del Norte than 
in Humboldt County. 

Fritz: There was no economical transport up there then. It was considered 
more or less inaccessible. It was eighty miles from the railroad. 


Fritz: To that you had to add the trucking of the logs over a road not 
designed for heavy truck traffic. 

Fry: What did Drury think about this suggestion, If he wanted this 

for a park? Weren t you on the Council of the Save-the- Redwoods 
League at that time? 

Fritz: Yes, I have been a Council member since 1934. It wasn t a 

question of a national forest versus a state park at the time. 
Drury had to know what the Forest Service wanted to buy or what 
it was examining for a future national forest, because then the 
League would know whether it should stay away or whether it would 
protest it as a possible purchase by the League for a state park. 

The U.S.F.S. finally bought that land at about twenty-five cents 
per thousand board feet, dirt cheap. It was an excellent "buy" 
for the U.S.F.S. It has been selling it for fifteen dollars or 
more. The sales had nothing to do with research. That same 
timber, at present, if it were near Scotia, would bring about 
fifty dollars. That s where distance makes the big value. 

It was a classic Instance of the Forest Service talking through 
both sides of its mouth. It was not so much, as I said, an interest 
in getting data to help companies to do a better job. It was really 
to satisfy an old desire to have a redwood national forest. To 
satisfy this ambition, the U.S.F.S. missed a great opportunity to 
institute a prospect! ve I y very useful research project. That 
project, when finally set up, came too late. 

By establishing its redwood national forest in Del Norte County, its 
research results would be applicable only in that county and north 
ern Humboldt County. The redwoods are quite different as to site 
factors in middle Humboldt and southward. A forest stretched in a 
thin strip for five hundred miles of latitude in California is 
certain to vary greatly. Furthermore, most of the lumbering is 
southward. It was only during the World War II years that 
lumbering became important in Del Norte. 

Maunder: Let s get back to the study projects. 

Fritz: Yes, let s do that, because we are confusing several projects. 
More and more comes back to me as we talk. 

There was another one for which E.T.F. Wohlenberg deserves credit 
for involving the U.S.F.S. My part was only that of a catalyst. 
Wohlenberg had been for many years the timber man of the Internal 
Revenue Service and was now, about 1940, returning to the Forest 
Service. Just previously, Roy Wagner of the U.S.F.S. San Francisco 
Office had completed several great studies in the pine region on a 
thorough analysis of timber stands, their make-up, the effect of 
tree size on costs, and so forth. I felt we badly needed such a 
study In. the redwood country. Wohlenberg was highly respected among 
foresters and lumbermen. He undertook to discuss the Wagner studies 


Fritz: with redwood operators and found the Pacific Lumber Company res 
ponsive. I had recommended to this company that It should have the 
study made. Roy Wagner was detailed to take it on. Wohlenberg, at 
the same time, Interested the I.R.S. In the taxation aspects. The 
end sought was an encouragement of selective cutting. 

Fry: Who in that company did you deal with and find most helpful there? 

Fritz: The president and the manager. The president was A. S. Murphy, and 
. E. Yoder was the manager and, of course, far more important be 
cause he was the logging boss Gordon Manary. Wohlenberg discussed 
It with me before the Company was approached. Wohly was an old 
friend from our Arizona days. 

Fry: Do you remember whether the Pacific study was initiated primarily 
by the company, or by the Forest Service, or by you? 

Fritz: It was suggested to the Forest Service by Wohlenberg and myself. 

Most likely, Wohlenberg knew of the Wagner reports and thought the 
redwood industry should have one too. The study made by Wagner on 
the Pacific Lumber Company lands was a wonderful Job, very thor 
oughly and nicely organized. He got a lot of valuable daTFTor 
Organizing selective cutting Based on woods data. 

But then, In I94J, we got Into the war [Second World War], and we 
needed a whole lot more lumber than Industry was manufacturing for 
France and Britain. Unfortunately for forestry and for the selec 
tive cutting system, the Company s cutting program had to be tuned 
to the war effort. The area on which the selective cutting system 
was to be Installed had to be logged by the company s slack line 
system of clear cutting to get out logs more quickly, rather than 
doing it with tractors. 

Maunder: But it raises hob with the land. 

Fritz: Yes. The land was later seeded, but I don t think It caught very 
well. We had a period of very dry years. 

Fry: Where was this? 

Fritz: It was on Jordan Creek, a tributary of the South Fork of the Eel 
River. After the war, the Company gave up the slack line 
for good and went wholly to tractors and selective cutting. The 
Wagner data came into use. It was not lost because of the war. 

Maunder: Was there an inclination on the part of the Forest Service to be 
more interested in pine area research than in redwood research at 
this time? 

Fritz: The Forest Service had 150 million plus acres of timber to admin 
ister, only a pittance of it In redwood. So naturally their re 
search was concentrated on their own lands. Whatever they learned 


Fritz: there could then be extrapolated to private lands. Now they 
didn t get into redwood forestry for some years. I think I |- 
was in 1ho Thirties when fhoy got started In the redwoods 1o 
do some work. Show had written a bulletin In the I920 s but 
that was taken largely from the work of others. They didn t 
do much field work on It. Some blanKs were filled in by 
Duncan Dunning of the Experiment Station. 

Fry: This was a bulletin concerning what? 

Fritz: "Minimum requirements for logging in the redwood region," I 
think, that was the title. 

Maunder: Well, the reason I brought this up was that in your correspond 
ence in I937 with Woodbury, you mentioned the fact that you d 
been talking with him about the matter of the industry taking 
up practices of good forestry in the redwoods. And you say 
that he was coming to you, but that his work facilities were 
rather limited, and that the pine region demands took up a 
major part of the Forest Service s time, and you understood 
that. But at the same time, you thought It was hardly good 
policy or even good salesmanship for putting over the forestry 
Idea, to be overly critical of the redwood region until you can 
find the time to get the necessary data for an effective sales 

You go on: "I think you can afford to leave it alone until you 
can present something really convincing, otherwise nothing but 
antagonism is aroused. If and when your organization or any 
other group has developed sound proof that what we want is good 
business, and if the industry should then show a deaf ear just to 
be contrary, I ll help you to be critical . I don t think it will 
be necessary though. I haven t found one operator yet who will 
turn down a good business proposition." 

In other words, you re pointing out the opportunities that exist 
for leading the redwood Industry, and you re suggesting to the 
Forest Service in this letter that perhaps they do need to do more 
studies that will have meaning to the redwood people. 

Fritz: You ve read a great deal there that refreshes my memory. This was in? 
Maunder: March 5, I937. 

Fritz: We are still confusing the projects. You mentioned one for Hammond, 
one for Pacific Lumber Company and one for Dolbeer & Carson. I 
think you had the latter In mind. As I said, it was understandable 
that the U.S.F.S. would concentrate fts research in the pine region. 
Their men were trained in that region, and they had responsibility 
there to the taxpayers because they were managing the taxpayers 
pub I ic property. 

Now, the fact that they were not doing any research in the redwoods 


Fritz: was probably the result of a combination of things. First of all, 
they didn t have the funds to go Into the redwoods for research 
work; second, the redwood people didn t Invite It or there wasn t 
a demand for It. There wasn t a demand In that sense, but there 
was a real need for It. 

Maunder: And you were pointing out the need. 

Fritz: Yes. I don t recall how that happened to come up, but Woodbury and 
I had corresponded on several occasions about research in the red 
woods. It was brought about by Article X of the NRA Code. The 
Forest Service men let it be known that they wanted to help. 

practicing selective cutting because of 

920 ? s, and many more there- 

I was sold on the idea of 

my experience with several trees in the 

after, and by observing and boring a lot of trees that were left by 

the early day loggers. I felt that we needed some more data to 

help anybody, and especially myself, to back me up or back up my 

argument that selective cutting should be given a fair trial. 

I had one project in mind. Kotok came into this picture because 
he was head of the Experiment Station. Now I don t know If this 
particular project Is concerned In that letter that you read ex 
tracts from, but In this project It was my Idea that the Forest 
Service should find an area of modest size which would be logged 
very promptly on which they could get all kinds of needed data: 
the size of the trees, volume, quality, cost of logging, cost of 
milling, and so on, and the grades that came out of it, tree by 
tree, the "green chain cost" of the lumber. I had made studies 
myself like that before and had even trained the students in mak 
ing such studies at summer camp, but we had no facilities for an 
extensive study like that. 

So they set up a project with "Doc" Brundage in charge. He was a 
very competent man, on Kotok s staff, and a very independent thinker, 
He had made studies like this In the pine country, and I would like 
to have had Brundage make such a study In the redwoods so that I, 
or others, In talking to the lumber people about the feasibility 
of the selective cutting system, would have some figures to back 
me up. And of course, the Industry Itself would have been glad 
to have that data. 

Well, they made the study. I got Into some trouble over it. 
Maunder: Why? 

Fritz: The study was made on the Do I beer and Carson Lumber Company lands 

on a seventy-acre piece. I had previously taken the Company s log 
ging superintendent about it to get his approval. I would go up 
there by night train and get there Saturday mornings. (In those 
days, I930 s, they all worked on Saturdays.) I wanted to see how 
things were going. 


Fritz: One day I was called to one side by the superintendent and was 

asked In terms like this, "What In the world aid you get us into 
here?" I said, "What s wrong?" 

He said, "This Is supposed to be a study of selective cutting and 
so on, but It turns out to be a program of Indoctrinating our crews 
in socialism, public ownership." 

"How is that possible? They re supposed to be out there getting 
this data on trees and so on." 

"I suppose they re getting that. But they had to stay at our camp 
at night, and they would visit with the loggers and discuss socialism 
versus private ownership of natural resources." 

Maunder: Who was leading these discussions? 

Fry: Were these forestry students who were working out there? 

Fritz: No, they were all employees of the federal Forest Experiment Station 
and the Regional Forestry Office In San Francisco. So I made some 
Inquiries. I was astounded. The superintendent, Clarence La 
Boyteaux, then told me there were more than twenty men on this job. 
I couldn t figure out where they could use twenty. 

It turned out that some of these men were "observers." The Forest 
Service was eager to get into the redwoods. Here was an opportunity 
to get a start for the proposed redwood national forest. Mr. La 
Boyteaux was furious about the political work of these men after 
working hours. 

Fry: Well, what finally happened? 

Fritz: Brundage did a very good job and prepared a report on his findings. 
He was not involved in the politics. His mathematics were good but 
the economics were missing. It meant that only six-foot trees were 
profitable. The rest should be left standing. Now, six-foot trees 
are in the minority. There wouldn t have been enough six-foot and 
over to make the operation pay. It is dangerous business to apply 
statistical methods to biological data. Economics had to be con 
sidered too. 

Maunder: What about H. L. Person, a si I viculturist? You must have had a 
great deal to do with Person. 

Fritz: Oh yes. I think he was responsible for the trouble In the Dolbeer 
and Carson camp. 

Maunder: Oh, you rrean he was the one who was preaching socialism? 

Fritz: Yes. 

Fry: He was the superintendent. 


Fritz: He was the general In charge of the research, as I remember It, 
but Brundage was In charge of the field work. 

Maunder: Well, what can you tell us about H. L. Person besides that? He 
did a lot of data gathering, did he not, on selective logging in 
the redwood region? Wasn t he the man who was going to do the work 
on the Hammond Eel River tract in 1937 or 38? 

Fritz: I don t remember that. Person would not have made that one. That 

was an economics study; Person was in silviculture. Person did make 
a study on accelerated growth of redwood following selective cutting. 
I think that was published as an article. 

Maunder: Well, I can t help but come away from an examination of this cor-^ 
respondence file with an idea that there was a developing of good 
feeling between you and members of the Forest Service over re 
search projects in the redwood region in the late Thirties. It 
wasn t all negative. You had rather good relations with this man, 
Woodbury, in the U.S.F.S. administrative office In San Francisco. 

Fritz: Well, that may be correct, but It had no relation with Woodbury, 
as to his observers on the Do I beer and Carson study area. Of 
course, ! took It up with Woodbury. I doubt that he knew what his 
men were doing evenings. Anyway, the observers were recalled. That 
left only the Experiment Station men out there to do the job. 

Fry: Who brought them back? 

Fritz: The Forest Service and the Experiment Station. They left only the 
necessary men out there, not the sightseers and the "observers." 
Woodbury and I were always good friends. I trusted him. 

Maunder: You say, Emanuel, in this letter that I m particularly bearing down 
on in this interview, that you and Woodbury are essentially seeking 
to get forestry practiced in the redwoods but that you see the prob 
lem in different terms. And you go on in your letter specifically: 
"And please get over the idea that I am not in favor of pushing 
redwood forestry or that I try to gloss over the shortcomings of 
the Industry. We are trying to get the same objective but my methods 
are entirely different than yours. Time alone will tell which Is 

Fritz: As I said, Woodbury and I were always on friendly terms and we dis 
cussed things back and forth. When I was hospitalized one time, he 
was the only Forest Service man to call on me. 

Maunder: When were you hospitalized? 
Fritz: It was in 38. Broken leg. 

Maunder: Did you maintain friendly relations with him for a long time after 
he retired? 


Fritz: Yes. 

Maunder: Is he sti I I I Iving? 

Fritz: He s still living. I heard recently he s not In the best of health, 
I tried my best to get him to write something about his early days, 
but I think when he retired he became a loner. 

Fry: Bitter? 

Fritz: Bitter, maybe. And shucks, I had more reason to be bitter than he. 
Bitterness will ruin a man if it isn t controlled. 

Maunder: Do you know where he lives in retirement? 

Fritz: East Oakland. I think you d have a hard time getting anything out 
of him though. 

Fry: What s he bitter about? 

Fritz: Oh, perhaps his own experiences in the Forest Service. 

Maunder: What were these that made him bitter, do you know? 

Fritz: Well, one of them was that he and a lot of his friends thought he 
should have been the Regional Forester instead of S. B. Show. It 
would have been a far better choice considering the way things 
turned out, although Woodbury himself was pretty hard on his own 
men. This is all right. There s no reason why a man shouldn t 
be hard on his own men If he Is also fair. Woodbury was always 
on the level with me. I was told once that he defended my course 
of action in endeavoring to get forestry into the redwoods. 

Industry Cooperation and Forestry Attempts 

The Union Lumber Company 



Which among the redwood companies would you say were more cooperative 
in the first stages of forestry practice in that region? 

Easily the Union Lumber Company. It helped me by opening its opera 
tions to me as early as 1921 or 1922. In time, all the principal 
operators gave me an ear and cooperation. 

Why do you single them out first? 

First of all, the president of the company, Charles R. Johnson, was 
a man of much broader view than the presidents of the other companies 
in the I920 s. He felt that it wasn t right to log redwood the way 


Fritz: he was logging, but that it was the only way he could log it and 

come out ahead. Every timber company was in debt to the banks 

and bondholders. It was a terrible sword of Damocles over their 

When I needed help to carry on a sawmill study, C. R. Johnson gave 
it. He was all for it. Long before that, C. R. Johnson spent 
thirty-five or forty-five thousand dollars a lot of money in 
those days to make a study of the hardwoods that they encounter 
when they log redwood to see what can be done with them as a crop. 
But economics were not favorable. 

Fry: This was a study on utilization of hardwoods? 

Fritz: Very much so. Hardwoods mixed with the redwood in many areas. He 
also wanted to do something about his cutover lands. He wanted 
to get them to grow up again. 

Fry: This was after you came when he tried to do something about cut- 
over lands? 

Fritz: He had that idea long before I came. I merely helped it along, but 
I didn + generate the idea in his mind. You see, in the early days 
of redwood lumbering, the coastal area was cut off from the rest of 
the state. You couldn t get up there except by boat or very poor 

Union Lumber Company and Humboldt County mills were accessible only 
by boat. It wasn t until 1914 and 1915 that they got a through 
railroad, the Northwestern Pacific, owned jointly by the Santa 
Fe and Southern Pacific railroads. Prior to the extension of 
N.W.P.R.R. north from Will its, the Union Lumber Company had its 
own railroad from Fort Bragg to Will its. 

It was yery difficult to get meat in there, for example. So they 
thought they ought to raise their own meat, but where to raise it? 
It was logical to raise it on cutover land. As soon as the for 
est was cut, they would burn all the trash and then seed the land 
to grass, mostly orchard grass. It would yield good forage for 
about three years. Each year the cutover land area was added to, 
so there was always a fresh area to reseed and run stock on. The 
grass was thinned out by invading brush and trees. 

Later on, the economic situation was different. There were rail 
roads, and the lumbermen gradually gave up running of cattle on 
their own lands or leasing that use to others. The lumber people 
were actually in the cattle business, as well as lumbering. 

In the early 1910 s, Mr. Johnson heard about the eucalyptus boom 
and thought, "Well, let s try it out," and they planted quite an 
area to eucalyptus. And some of the other redwood companies did 
the same. Some of those stands of eucalyptus are still there. 


Fritz: They re very valuable to the forester because they give him an 
idea of what this particular species of eucalyptus could endure 
as to cold and frost and winds and whatnot and what kind of wood 
they make. 

Fry: Were they planting this for commercial .... 

Fritz: For lumber, hopefully. The West Is rich in conifers, but very 
poor in good hardwoods. 

Fry: Did he have a specific idea about utilization at the time? 

Fritz: He must have. The world needs hardwoods as well as soft woods. 

Redwoods are regarded as soft wood. The principal claim made for 
eucalyptus was its rapid growth, as against what was believed to 
be the slow growth of redwood. 

Fry: But eucalyptus didn t work out, did it? 

Fritz: It didn t work out because you couldn t grow it in competition with 
the very fine hickory and oak and ash and others from the eastern 
U.S. Worse, eucalyptus is very hard and heavy and difficult to 
season and work. In 1923, the owners turned to reforestation with 
redwood and Douglas fir. That program came to a sudden end when 
the Depression started. 

Fry: Why did this end with the Depression? Just a general lack of 
funds you mean? 

Fritz: The mills were shut down; business was dead. 
Fry: There were no si I vicultural problems Involved? 

Fritz: Some. We haven t got some important answers to a I I of them yet. 
Also, local people were cool to reforestation. Some hired for 
planting did very poor jobs. Fires destroyed some plantations. 

Mr. Johnson was a broad-minded man. He took a chance on a lot of 
things, both mechanical in the mill and also out in the woods, even 
on equipment. He was one of the first men to try out a tractor in 
the middle 1920 s. 

Fry: And I guess he had a swing at selective cutting in redwood? 

Fritz: That came afterward. Mr. Mason, of course, was interested in se 
lective logging, and his activity In It I think got a boost from 
the report I wrote in 1923, about that cutting experiment on Big 
River in which there were several trees left by the early loggers 
which showed what they will do when they are left standing for seed 
trees and further growth. 

Fry: Who was in Mr. Johnson s Company who helped him with all these things? 


Fry: Did he have some bright young forester? This was before there 
were any foresters at all, wasn t It? 

Fritz: No, there were no foresters at all. But several of his officials, 

like Bob Swales, Walter Collins, anr 1 Ross, were interested. I n 1921 or 
1922, he began to hire some foresters to carry on the reforestation 
program. They built up a very large nursery, probably one of the 
largest in the state. They went into it very seriously and con 

Fry: For your own part in this, were you a consultant for the Union 
Lumber Company later on, from 1934 on? 

Fritz: I had nothing to do with the planting program. I did no consult 
ing work until about 1934, that is, private work for compensation. 
Don t forget, I was teaching wood technology and lumbering, not 

The University gets calls every day from taxpayers for advice on 
many things. When wood was Involved, the inquiries would filter 
Into my mall tray. For example: "Can the University send a man 
to see why I have dry rot In my house?" I would go and determine 
If It Is rot or termites and advise the owner on what to do. I 
crawled under dozens of houses, Into attics, over wooden bridges, 
and so forth. I felt it was my Job to learn from actual contact 
with problems. 

The lumber people too, once they lost their fear of professors, 
would ask for advice on their lumber drying problems, dry kilns, 
wood properties, wood preservation, and so forth. I regarded it 
as Extension work. It was very valuable to my teaching. From 
1919 to 1934, I never requested or received compensation for such 
advice. I profited, however, in that I was building up practical 
experience to use in my courses. 

Consulting in the Redwoods 

Maunder: Emanuel, you say that for a long time, over twenty-five years, you 
worked without a promotion here and at the same pay, and that you 
were obliged in order to meet your expenses to go outside and do 
consulting work. Where did this develop? Where did you find your 
first clients? Who were they? 

Fritz: Yes, I could not live the way I wanted to live on my salary. Being 
placed on academic status in 1934, I felt free to charge for my 
services when they were for people in business who sought help 
for business purposes. 

Well, somebody would telephone to the University and would ask for 
some advice about a timber sale contract, a builder would want ad 
vice regarding lumber, a lawyer would ask for advice and maybe court 
appearances In cases concerning wood use. I had picked up a lot of 
experience on the practical side, and I d give a caller an answer 
over the telephone. And he would say, "Well, can t you come out?" 


Fritz: I d say, "Well, I ll have to do that weekends." But it got to be 
a burden. I spent more time under people s houses than I did in 
the office, I would tell them, "From the way you describe it, it s 
this and that and that. It can t be anything else, and this is 
what I would recommend that you do." "No, I Insist that you come 

My first fee came when one day a man wanted to know if a piling 
contractor was supplying tKS right species to go under a very large 
and very heavy building. He wanted to know if Oregon pine is as 
good as Douglas fir. Naturally, I said not only as good, but they 
are one and the same thing. 


"Well," he said, "I won t accept that over the telephone. 
you to go out in the woods and examine the trees from which 
pilings are made. Can you 

do it?" I told him I d have 

to do it on 

my own time. He said, "That s all right. We ll expect you to do 
it on a professional basis." 

That s the way it all started, and then of course, when Article 
X came out, it was different altogether; then it began to grow 
from there. From the consequent experience, I feel that every 
professor should be permitted to do outside work to help sharpen 
his teaching. 

From that time 

on in the Thirties, you had a lot more consulting 



Not at all "a lot." I want to have this on the record. Never did 
my outside work interfere with my teaching. My redwood work never 
paid any more than a modest retainer. I regarded most of it as 
Extension work. Concurrently I made a number of independent Im 
promptu studies on redwood tree and forest details to fill in the 
gaps in the general knowledge for application in the selective 
cutting program, as well as a better understanding of the struc 
ture of the wood itself. 

There is always the danger that outside work will cause suspicion 
of overdoing it. I can say frankly that my private work was minimal. 
My teaching never suffered. Rather, it was benefited. Most of what 
others would call consulting work was actually what I should have 
been doing anyway as a teacher to improve my experience. 

I could have made consulting a major job and it would have been 
profitable, but It would have meant resigning from U.C. And I 
wouldn t resign for anything in the world. I liked the job, I 
liked the people and they trusted me, I liked the state and I had 
my roots too deeply in the effort to put forestry into the woods 
where It belongs rather than in preachment. 

I don t want to get into a long discussion. There are just a few 
other things I want to clear up here. One is that you were doing 


Maunder: consulting work in this period, in the middle Thirties. Was this 
a time when you began to be involved In redwood consultancy, or 
was your consultancy In another area? 

Fritz: It started In cases where my wood ttohnology and acquaintance with 
lumber was required. I wasn t really ever a consultant to the Red 
wood Association. More correctly, I was their advisor but on their 
records I was a consultant. 

Maunder: I mean the redwood companies. 

Fritz: For several redwood companies I prepared reports on what needs to 
be done to put the operations on a perpetual basis. This was done 
on a professional basis. 

Maunder: What is the essential difference between an advisor and a consul 

Fritz: Not a great deal. An advisor is not necessarily paid much. The 

consultant does work on a professional basis. He makes field studies, 
prepares a report, and takes some professional risks. When I came 
to the University of California, we were expected to do a certain 
amount of Extension work and each year we were asked how much work 
we did In teaching, how much in research, how much In Extension 

Maunder: None of which was for pay it was all part of your job? 

Fritz: Yes. The job I did on Big River on the Union Lumber Company s 

land in 1923, of which you asked me earlier, was all for the Uni 
versity. The same was true of the Humboldt study. When I took on 
the advisory work for the Redwood Association, I would have to go 
into the woods, naturally, and talk to a lot of people, and I was 
gaining a real knowledge of redwoods. I had to bootleg a lot of 
experimental work which I should have done as a University man, and 
did, but C.R.A. paid the expenses. It was all to get some data to 
make selective cutting workable. The selective cutting program 
should have been under the University in its entirety. 

Maunder: Weren t you ever put to work on special assignment by David Mason 
when he had an office in San Francisco and he was doing a lot of 
work with the redwood companies? 

Fritz: For pay? I should say not. 
Maunder: He didn t? 
Fritz: No. 

Maunder: I wondered, because he was one of the early consultants who had 
an income from the redwood industry. 


Fritz: Mason was the type of man who wouldn t pay If he didn t have to. 
He was more of an exploiter. 

Mnunder: On some of the studies that wore made In the redwoods? 

Fritz: That project on Big River he explained It to Mulford as his. That s 
one reason it was never published. It was discouraging that Mulford 
should listen to an outsider rather than to one of his own faculty 
members. Mason was not a member of the U.C. staff then. 

And then another time in 1928, I carried on a study on old growth 
redwood as to what becomes of the wood in a redwood tree after it s 
cut on a lumbering operation. It involved about 1250 trees. That 
was a job. That s the most I m not bragging but that was the 
most complete job that was ever done on getting information on any 
redwood trees. It has been used by the U.S. Forest Experiment Sta 
tion on several occasions since. They made use of my data on a 
cull study but never gave credit to the University or to me. 

You wonder sometimes why I have been critical of the Forest Service. 
If anybody deserved criticism, It was that bureau. They are al 
together different now. 

Maunder: Well, you were commenting here a minute ago about Dave Mason s use 
of people. Can you cite any instances where this imposed on you 
personally in doing things for him that . . . ? 



I d rather not go into this further. He wasn t fair with me, but 
I will mention one matter that was revealing as to where I stood. 
It soured me on formal research. 

In some research study? 

I was engaged on a large project in 1928 to learn what becomes of the 
contents of a felled forest. It is important to have an answer be 
cause, obviously, the conversion of a tree into lumber is^aTtended 
by considerable waste; for a tree is tapered, contains sapwood and 
bark, is often irregular in cross section, and, in the case of old- 
growth stands, frequently very defective. Once the volume of this 
unavoidable waste is known, one can determine how much money one 
dare spend on studies aimed at its utilization. 

Well, the project was well under way when Walter Mulford, the head 
of our department, came to my office one day and suggested that I 
restrict my project because D. T. Mason had taken on a similar 
study on the same property as a consultant. 

I refused, because my project was entirely different except that 
the data could be used for such studies as selective cutting. My 
assistants and I were not inconvenienced much but we did learn the 
difference between selective logging and selective cutting. I worked 
on the theory that once a tree is felled it should be used as closely 
as market conditions justified. 










Let me make a generalization here and see how you react to it. 
It sometimes almost seems as if there s a lot of diplomatic ex 
change between protagonists In this struggle on the one hand the 
lumbermen, on the other hand thfi Forest Service In which they go 
through a lot of artful dancing back and forth, loving each other 
at close range, but whenever they get amongst themselves in their 
own council they are savagely attacking one another. When the 
foresters are in their own bailiwick, they are calling the lumber 
men ravagers of the woods and devils incarnate. When the lumber 
men are assembled in their council, they are damning the Forest 
Service from hell to breakfast. Now this repeats itself over and 
over again, it seems to me. 

You are very discerning. It used to be that way, but times have 
changed. There is more mutual understanding and better cooperation. 

There s always a lot of nice friendly talk back and forth among you 
guys on opposite sides of the fence, but frankly one comes away 
from the whole examination thinking that for al! the friendly ex 
change and talk, you really hate each other s guts. And you really 
don t trust each other any farther than you can throw a bull ele 
phant by the tai I . 

Now that s my impression of It. And excuse me, 
tor tans, for enclosing this personal view Into 

get off my 

but frankly this 

is Just something I feel I ve got to 

you future his- 

an oral history 


Fritz: Well, I would say that you have a very penetrating mind. 

that I m on 

neither side. 
a member of 

I m very 
I m not a member of 

glad that I can say 

the Forest Service, and I m not a member of the lumber industry. 
In my position I can be independent. But I will say that the For 
est Service was trying to do on its own lands what 1 was trying to 
get private owners to do on their land. So there couldn t be any 
opposition there. But whenever the Forest Service would try to do 
something which I would interpret as an attempt to spread its con 
trol beyond its own forests, I felt I should make my feelings known, 

And in the redwoods you really felt that there was lots and lots 
of evidence that this was what the Forest Service was trying to do? 

And they had a wonderful chance right after World War I I closed. 

What was that? 

i ntro- 

I ion 

When Helen Gahagan Douglas, at that time a congresswoman 
duced a bill to purchase the entire redwood region for $500 mil 
to set up a great Franklin Delano Roosevelt National Park and a 
great Franklin Delano Roosevelt National Forest. 

Was this all to be accomplished within one grand purchase for over 
$500 mi I lion? 


Fritz: They couldn t touch it for $500 million, but they didn t know that. 

Maunder: Well, why do you say the Forest Service lost a grand opportunity 
at that point after the war? 

Fritz: To prove it was really sincere about its trying to help the in 
dustry rather than to get control of it. 

Maunder: I see. What was the Forest Service s position on the Douglas Bill? 

Fritz: Well, wouldn t you be for it if you were among the top brass in the 
Forest Service? Here s a chance to get a big chunk of forest land 
and have a new national forest. And the Park Service would be 
happy to get a new park. Each asked for too much to win. 

Maunder: I don t know whether I would or not. Who was the Chief Forester 
at that time? 

Fritz: Lyle Watts, wasn t it? 

In spite of the fact that I m very much in favor of parks, and 
would have favored a national park and a national forest if they 
had gone about it in a statesmanlike manner rather than just go 
out there and practically blackjack the owners and blackmail them 
before the public, that isn t the way to do things. 

Fry: What was done here in California when the Douglas bill came up? 

Fritz: There was opposition. 

Fry: And you were probably a part of it. CLaughter]] 

Fritz: Well, in the sense that I injected myself into it; but I was never 
asked to take a part by anybody, including the redwood people. The 
redwood people are an interesting lot. They are highly individu 
alistic, and even though I was their advisor on forestry matters, 
they could have come to me because I was on a retainer basis. They 
didn t regard me as a salaried employee; I was a "subcontractor," 
you might say. They never asked me to take an active part in the 
controversy. I acted solely on my own. 

My sole interest was to see that the redwood lands were so managed as 
to put the industry and its dependents on a firm and perpetual basis. 
The cut-out-and-get-out policy was ending. Why throw a monkey 
wrench into the works? 

Maunder: They never sent you to Washington, for example, to lobby against 
this legislation? 

Fritz: No. They never asked me to lobby in Washington or Sacramento. 
Maunder: You did, I recall, come out with strong statements on it in the 




Maunder: American Forest Magazine, and I m not sure but I think you wrote 


something for the Journal of Forestry on it. 

I don t remember, but I could have done It. I get very much con 
cerned when I think of some of the ^hlngs that are being done in 
this country even right now under the present administration. A 
first-generation American of north European extraction is more 
jealous of and more eager to preserve the American system of fair 
play and of private enterprise than Mayflower descendents. 

Maunder: Well, cite a few things j 

\ a^e specifically to what we ve been 

talking about. What things are not kosher in the current redwood 
national park controversy? 

you know 
wouldn t 


Supposing you wanted to buy a piece of property and 
the owner is. You would deal with the owner first, 
even though you had to deal through an attorney? 


You wouldn t go out and spread the gospel in the newspapers that 
had a better way of handling that land than Its owner, call 



greedy and too profit conscious, destructive, and so on, or say 

that he s ruining the land and you should be supported In taking 

it over 

Maunder: If you re asking me what I would do, I ve never contemplated buy 



ing anything except a house. I ve never heard of anybody using 
the tactic you re talking about to buy a house. 

Haven t you been called in as consultant on 
park question for the Save-the-Redwoods League? 

this redwood 


The Save-the-Redwoods League rarely comes to me for any advice 
either on technical or otfier~"matters. On my own I would bring 
some matters sometimes. 






They used to come to you, according to your correspondence files. 

Not on matters affecting decisions except in a most general way. 
In my early days I would make suggestions about, for example, a 
museum, or helping get selective cutting established or at least 
recognized. It was desirable that the fine state parks be supple 
mented by well-managed adjacent commercial operations. They could 
have accomplished more I think if they had had a man on their 
board who could have advised them on those matters. 

Well, I was trying to establish what your connection is with the 
proposed redwood national park, just for the record. 

Merely as a very 
question. I was 

interested onlooker. 
asked by the Redwood 

You asked me a 
Association if I 

would write 

Emanuel Fritz, "Recommendations for Accelerating the Acquisition 
of Redwood Lands for State Parks," presented to Save-the-Redwoods 
Leaaue Council. 23 October 1952. See Appendix Af PP. 




Fritz : 


magazine and press articles about the redwood parks, but I declined. 
I was not Interested In manufacturl nq public Imaqes. One thlnq was 
sure. I felt the manaqement of the T>lerr;i Club was less inforosted 
In preserving redwoods than In creating a reputation of saviors. 
The Club resorted to false statement and slanted propaganda. I 
never qot the whole story from either side as to who Initiated all 
this, or why the propaganda for a park had to be so offensive. I 
tried to get it just yesterday at lunch and I failed miserably. My 
belief is that the Sierra Club started it without consulting the 
League or the owners, perhaps for the impact of surprise. 

Tried to get the story from whom? 

Sometimes I went to a park man and sometimes I would go to an in 
dustry man. Being retired, I have no official source of information. 

I think this 
since 1919. 

is a question that has been wandering around ever 

Fritz: Well, you are given that impression, but it s like starting in a 
business and selling out, and then going across the street and 
starting another business some years later, the same kind of a 
business. When the park issue was dropped out In the early 1920 s, 




it dropped out cold, 
the same tactics, the 

And when It was up 
park lost again. 

again In the 1940 s with 

Who is "they"? The Sierra Club? 

the Sierra Club, the National Park Service, and their supporters 
my view, the League was ignored, yet the League was the wheel 



horse since 1918 and accumulated all the best 

call that the Sierra Club had much to do with 

I940 s. If so, it was not an active part. 

it in the 

I don t 
1910 s 


Conservation agencies, as you probably have learned, are no better, 
no stronger, and no more honest than their executive heads. Some 
conservationist executives have mainly a job interest in conserva 
tion, or a determination to be another John Muir. Some have de 
veloped to a fine art the agitation of the public with the "scare 
hell out of them" tactic. 

Do you think the executives in these organizations are becoming 
more expert in accomplishing just that? 

They generally have good stated objectives but the methods of some 
are questionable. You have only to study the publicity on the 
redwood park issue. 

Before we close 
tional park but 

this, let me add that there 
it will be in the wrong place. 

will be a redwood na 
It will not be as 

good timber or as accessible as the existing redwood state parks. 
The League, under Drury, has already acquired the best stands. The 
Sierra C ub, without checking with anyone, arrogantly included three 


Fritz: of the best state parks In the area it demanded for a national 

park. Without them, the national park Is without a flaq. I hope 
the shite of California will not give up the two the latest bill 
Includes. These parks belong to California; the taxpayers paid 
one half of the cost, private donorr gave the other half. Our 
state park people have done an excellent job administering them. 
The National Park Service can do no better. 

The Tree Farm Movement 






Emanuel, how did legislation in the early Forties affect the 
lumber industry? 

Near the end of World War I I , we had some legislation called the 
Sustained Yield Forest Management Act. 

Yes, in 1944. 

It was to establish cooperative sustained yield management units 
between the private timber owners and the Forest Service with its 
own timber. Only one unit has been set up, that of Simpson Tim 
ber Company, a ninety-nine year contract. 

Why only one since then? Wasn t this a good idea? 

I urn- 

It was a grand idea, but just then the situation changed. The 
ber industry was carrying the ball for the first time. In 1941, 
it had set up a tree farm system. That program had two reasons 
behind it. One is generally spoken of as growing new forests. 
Second, companies wanted to practice forestry on their lands for 
effectuating their hope of continuity of production. They couldn t 
do it as long as the public was so careless with fire and didn t 
give a damn as long as it was the other fellow s property that 
they burned down. And they needed more old growth to carry them 
over to the time their young forest was to be merchantable. 

Wasn t industry threatened again by federal cutting regulation, and 
this was a reaction to prevent that legislation? 

And in some way to soften the controversy over regulation. 

I ve had the impression, in reading the background of this story, 
that a very considerable amount of the impetus for the creation 
of the tree farm program stemmed from what industry saw as a ris 
ing tide of new effort to get regulatory legislation passed; and 
they felt they had to do something to demonstrate dramatically 
before public opinion that they were capable of managing their own 
af fai rs. 

Fritz: Well, that probably had something to do with it, but I don t think 
it was the main reason. And I wouldn t blame them for it. 

Canyon Acres Tree Farm Dedication, April 17, 1954. Tree farmer 
E.O. Freeman, left, points out his acreage to Professor Emanuel 
Fritz, Consulting Forester, California Redwood Association. 

Professor Emanuel Fritz at Union Lumber Company 
tree farm dedication. May, 1951. 


Fritz: The tree farm system from the very start was jeered at by Forest 
Service men. Several came into my office at different times and 
said, "What do you know about this tree farm system?" 

"I don t know; it just started. Whai do you think about it?" 
"Oh, I think it s just window dressing." 

Well, when you have a program like that, somebody s going to get 
on the band wagon and use it for window dressing, but the majority 
will take it seriously. 

The tree farm system started on Weyerhaeuser land. That company 
was unquestionably sincere toward perpetual operation. This policy 
requires public support in preventing forest fires. The program 
grew from that small start. It was a public relations effort, in 
part to acquaint the public with forest management problems. 

Maunder: There are good ones and there are bad ones. 
Fritz: Just like there are good and bad farmers. 

Maunder: All right. If somebody was just doing it for window dressing, 

couldn t he be tossed out of the system? Tree farms, after all, 
had to be certified as tree farms. 

Fritz: Yes. 

Maunder: And if they did not perform to certain standards, could they not be 
"de-certified"? And if this were done, it would offset the criti 
cism, would it not? 

Fritz: Some tree farms were indeed de-certified. Well, you can t do much 
in three years. The Sustained Yield Act was passed about 1944, 
and the tree farm system was started in 1941. The criticism was 
that this was window dressing in an effort to throw the public off 
its guard. I think It was very unfair. If a man promised you 
that he s going to do a certain thing, you better wait and see 
that he does it before you suspect his sincerity. 

Maunder: Now let me ask you a question. To what extent did this attitude 
towards tree farming represent the thinking of all people within 
the Forest Service? Was It something that went right down through 
the ranks from the top to the bottom? 

Fritz: No Indeed. There were plenty of men in the Forest Service ranks 
who felt the tree farm idea is good and should be encouraged. 
Public men who talked conservation outside were the most careless 
with Uncle Sam s and the taxpayers money. Now making a dollar 
go as far as possible is also conservation, and there s also the 
conservation of time you only have twenty-four hours a day. If 
you waste some of it, you can t get it back. 


Maunder: Charles Dunwoody, with whom I had an interview just the other day 
in Pomona, told me that he was directly responsible for getting 
Ed Kotok all kinds of money for special projects, both from the 
state legislature and from the federal Congress. Can you tell 
me anything, about that? 

Fritz: Well, I wasn t close to that, but knowing both Kotok and Dunwoody, 
I would say that if Dunwoody was capable of influence of that kind, 
Kotok would certainly use Dunwoody very well. I remember one case 
which was talked about a great deal here. I think he got some 
thing like $25,000 for, I believe, watershed protection research 
in southern California. The first thing he did was to buy an auto 
mobile, which he used as a private car, since he had no car of his 
own. He could not do that with a federal car. He would oscillate 
back and forth between his office and his home for lunch when there 
were lunch rooms close to his office. That isn t conservation. 

Maunder: He was right here in the building, is that right? 

Fritz: Yes. IT was a very bad influence on some of our students. 

Maunder: In what way? 

Fritz: Word would get around among students mostly those he employed on 
a part-time basis the way he handled his affairs. 

Maunder: Was his kind of behavior the kind that they emulated or found 

Fritz: Who? 
Maunder: The students. 

Fritz: No, the students at that time were brought up under a different 
phi losophy. 

Maunder: I know, but would they be attracted by the kind of behavior 
they . . . . ? 

Fritz: No. They didn t want to work for a man like that. 

Maunder: Well, when did this clique begin to lose its influence and power 
in the profession? 

Fritz: Just about the time the United States got into the Second World War. 

Maunder: Why did they lose their influence? 

Fritz: They had the war to think about. 

Maunder: What happened then after the war? 

Fritz: They tried to resuscitate. But things changed very rapidly after 


Fritz: the war. The tree farm program was taking hold, and we in Cali 
fornia saw the effects of several other things very strongly. For 
example, the tree farm program was apparently being discussed among 
the people themselves I mean the owners. And every once in a 
while you d hear, up in the Douglas fir country, that such-and- 
such company was buying up cutover land. Why? Because they 
wanted to keep it growing to use when their own old growth was 
used up. 

We saw the impact in California. A number of small operators, 
small logging contractors, and small mill men, had moved to north 
western California, having learned that there was good timber in 
the Douglas fir belt, just east of the redwood belt, which there 
tofore was considered inaccessible. They would buy a quarter sec 
tion here and a quarter section there, and set up a mi I I and a 
little logging operation, and go to it. And we suddenly found 
ourselves with several hundred additional sawmills in the redwood 
belt. They were really mostly Douglas fir mills. (The Douglas 
fir eastward of the redwoods is a tributary to the redwood high 
way.) Being regarded as inaccessible, the timber was chea~p^ The 
small tracts of young growfh~ln Oregon and Washington were no longer 
available to them because of "f he tree farms being set up TFTere. 

Maunder: Was it this trend that offset the potential for the sustained yield 
unit arrangement with the Forest Service that Simpson Company em 
barked upon? 

Fritz: The Simpson people had some young stands but not enough to sustain 
their plant capacity. They needed old growth in sufficient volume 
to give the young stuff more time to become merchantable timber. In 
my opinion, conservation of forests is best served by large mills. 
They can have better machinery (that makes for less waste) and can 
build by-products factories, for utilizing the odds and ends that 
inevitably develop because of internal decay in the trees and the 
fact that logs are round and tapered. 

It is too bad there could not have been more of the Simpson-U.S.F.S. 
type of sustained yield units. Our remaining old growth would 
have lasted longer because of the lessened waste, and there would 
be greater local stability. 

C.R.A. Forester for the NIRA Lumber Code (Article X) 

Maunder: What part did you have, if any, in the formulation of the NIRA 
Lumber Code? Did you sit in on any of the meetings? 

Fritz: Yes, but I had no great part in it except to present my views. As 
you recall, the NIRA was an industry-operated scheme to install 
practices voluntarily. Every trade association had to have a for 
ester at that time, and I happened to be the one asked to serve 


Fritz: for the California Redwood Association. At the same time, the 

Forest Service ?asked Myron E. Krueger, my col leaque hero, to holp 
them in organizing their part. What their part was to be was never 
quite clear to me, but Krueger -,nd I were out several times to 
gether. However, it was largely an independent job, and a rather 
lonesome job too, at first. 

We sat down, the Forest Service men, the University men, a few 
lumbermen, and myself, and we worked out the wording of Article 
Ten for the redwood region. It was based pretty largely on what 
I had learned before, and what we put into that code was this 
rock-bottom minimum. 

Maunder: Where did all this take place? 

Fritz: In the office of the Redwood Association. Rex Black was in on 

that too; at that time he was Executive Director of the California 
Forest Protective Association. 

Article X was a part of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 
1933, but it then had to be implemented In and by regions. The 
Redwood Association was part and parcel of this region and, like 
other regions, had to write Its own rules. After they d written 
the rules, they had to abide by them. That was the philosophy 
of the NIRA. 

Well, the code was written, and even before that, I had been asked 
to serve as the C.R.A. advisor, or Code Forester; so I promptly 
went out in the field equipped with these rules. Of course, the 
operators all had copies of them too. I was very much encouraged 
and pleased that every man I talked to said, in effect, "We have 
agreed to do this voluntarily and we mean to carry it out, but we 
need your help, not only yours but that of others also. We want 
you to tell us what foresters think can be done or should be done, 
and we will then see how it can be done, and we ll try our best." 

In a very few months the whole NIRA was invalidated by the U.S. 
Supreme Court. However, the industry decided to continue Article 
X, which was not in controversy, and they asked me to continue 
to do that same kind of work; and I can give you some examples of 
how that worked out. 

I would visit the logging operations but not without the boss man 
knowing about it. Of course, later on I became better acquainted 
with the logging superintendents, and I had practically carte 
b I anche to go anywhere I wanted in the woods and talk to anybody. 
They were very, very good that way. My respect for the people in 
the lumber business began to rise, rise, and rise, and I finally 
decided that the s.o.b. s are not limited to this or that group, 
but every business and every profession has its fair share of them. 

There were some that were not enthusiastic but others were one 


Fritz: hundred percent and leaned over backwards. I would go out with 

the manager or the president, and with the logging boss, and we d 
watch the logging. At that time, it was all steam engine, donkey 
engine, and high lead or slackline logging very destructive. 
We would discuss how we could leave some seed trees. 

The logging boss would say something like, "It s going to be very 
difficult, but we ll try it. It s going to be costly and I m afraid 
the boss is going to say we can t do it." They made a real try. If 
you know about the slack line system, you know that when those lines 
were moved across the territory being logged, everything was pulled 
down. When they re through and the fire is run through to consume 
the slash, there isn t a green leaf left. 

I suggested that instead of tight-lining across the area, they pull 
in the lines and rethread back on another radius, using straw lines, 
back in and out every time they had to change a tai I tree. This would 
result in pie-shaped pieces of residual trees. They actually tried it 
out it was very expensive but it worked. 

I photographed the area at the time. In ten years the new forest was 
too tall to photograph. This was because they left some trees stand 
ing, and that area was protected by parks on one side and uncut 
timber on the other. It was also protected from the ocean winds by a 
ridge, so the seeds blew in, germinated and started a very respect 
able forest. In some places it s entirely too dense. 

It was decided the slackline system would be changed, but you can t 
change overnight. There s a lot of money involved. For example, one 
slackline setting has from 11,000 to 13,000 feet of wire rope, and 
that s expensive, and those donkey engines are expensive. They 
couldn t scrap them overnight and buy other equipment. 

The idea was to see if we could adapt the Old system to selective 
cutting. At present the wire system is not used except in a few 
cases in winter, and then for short pulls so they leave a lot of trees 
standing. But the high lead system is simpler than the slackline. 

It happened that the Union Lumber Company had experimented with 
tractors I think in 1 932 and I had watched them. I was out there 
merely as a University professor, but it seemed to me they had a very 
definite application to the redwoods. Before that we a I I felt that 
the tractors weren t strong enough. That was true, so they used two 
tractors in tandem. It happened that the Union Lumber Company only 
had that machine on loan, so they went back to their steam system. 

The operation depended on the logging bosses. Some wanted to do a 
bang-up job and others didn t care; some did a magnificent job of 
leaving seed trees stand, and it was quite a thing for them to do 
because it meant a lot of changes in their thinking and in the 
training of their men and their supervision, and so on. 

Fortunately, in that same autumn of I934, the Forest Service 


Fritz: decided to work up a small party and go to Oregon and see how the 
tractors were working in the big timber up there on the coast. 
There was John Berry, M. M. Barnum from the Forest Service, Myron 
Krueger from the University, myself, and Captain A. W. El am, who 
was my field man. Cap was not forestry-trained but he was very 
sympathetic to forestry ideas. 

We watched the tractors in operation for several days, and the 
Forest Service group and Captain El am and I were looking at it 
from several angles. We liked what we saw. I asked all of them 
when they came back not to express too much enthusiasm about the 
tractors but merely to report that they appeared to us to have 
possibilities and were worth trying out in the redwoods. I did 
that because any forcible and too definite statement is generally 
met with opposition, no matter who makes it. 

A few weeks after that, as we suggested, some of the lumber com 
panies sent their superintendents up to check on what we had seen 
and reported on, and one in particular came back and said, "Let s 
buy some and try them out ourselves." So they bought two they 
were Chalmers tractors and used them on flat ground on the Van 
Dusen River. That was the Hammond Lumber Company. Elmer Baker 
was the logging superintendent at the time. 

I watched those tractors many, many hours and days and we were all 
satisfied that they do have a very definite place in the redwoods, 
but that they must be made more powerful and more flexible. Of 
course, they were trying them out on the worst kind of ground, on 
flat ground where they had to drag against the full weight of the 
log. The beautiful thing was that they could weave in around 
among the trees that were still standing, just like they would 
have to weave in among the stumps anyway, so they left standing 
a lot of trees under four feet in diameter, breast high. 

Maunder: Whose operations were you observing up there in Oregon in the use 
of tractors and were they the pioneers in developing that method 
of logging? 

Fritz: They were among the pioneers. Several of them started about the 
same time. We visited mostly the Crown Zel lerbach operations. 

Maunder: Was it Crown s Ed Stamm who gave the tractor its first test in 
the woods? 

Fritz: Ed Stamm, Tom Jackson, Bert Torrey, and several others were very 
helpful. It was so interesting to go up there as practical re 
presentatives of the lumber industry. Even though we were for 
esters, we were received differently than if we had gone out there 
as University men representing the University or the Forest Service. 
They were very helpful and told us about some of the problems, and 
we reported on all that. 

The outcome, as I ve already said, was the purchase of two tractors 


Fritz: by the Hammond Lumber Company, and their application to a piece of 
flat, very heavy timber on the Van Dusen River. That was in Jan 
uary, 1935, and from that point on, the number of tractors purchased 
and put to use in the redwoods -"lultlplled very rapidly. In a very 
short time, there was about $500, OOu Invested in tractors, and In 
even less additional time, a million dollars worth. And today I 
don t know what it is, but you can t go anywhere in the woods now 
without seeing a tractor used for logging work, not only road- 
making but actual yarding. Nowadays, the bulldozers are used even 
for making a layout for heavy trees and smoothing out the ground 
so that the trees will fall on even ground to reduce the breakage. 
That in itself almost pays for the tractor. 


Those were the days, as you expect, of many frustrations, but also 
of many, many satisfactions. Here and there was always a man to 
say, "Yes, we ought to do it that way," or "We ve got to do it 
better than we are right now." Even though I worked solely with 
the men in the woods, from superintendents down, and did not work 
very closely with the men in the front office, they certainly heard 
about it. When I would meet them at a meeting or in their offices 
and would casually bring It up, they expressed satisfaction as to 
how things were going. 

Some of them thought that it didn t hurt them to do this or that 
and that it was good public relations, so they would continue it; 
but the more progressive ones took the attitude that they d been 
passing up a good bet and ought to get Into it wholeheartedly and 
make a go of it. 

That was the beginning of real selective cutting in the redwoods. 
The 1923 experiment on Big River, referred to earlier, proved very 
helpful. It supported the belief that the redwoods should be cut 
selectively. It has been proved that it s not only desirable sil- 
viculturally but also feasible and profitable commercially. 

Some operations, of course, are better than others, but I should 
say with very few exceptions (the smaller outfits) the results are 
very, very satisfactory. They are way ahead of the state forest 
practice rules as to the appearance of the cutover land. Some 
times they incur a violation as to the number of shovels they have 
handy for fire fighting and as to snag removal, but in the actual 
si I vicultural part, they re way ahead of the state rules. 

Logging Conferences 

Maunder: What part were the Pacific Logging Congresses and the regional 

congresses playing at this time in getting information about new 
technological developments disseminated through the industry? 

Fritz: I m glad you mentioned that because it s a very appropriate time 


Fritz: for it. Harry W. Cole was for a short time the head of the Cali 
fornia Redwood Association. He had been a company manager but the 
company was sold out to Hammond Lumber Company and left him stranded. 
It was the delightful and polished Harry Cole who asked me to serve 
as the Code Forester In the first place, and one day I told him 
that we could speed things up If we could get the loggers together 
in a conference. 

Redwood loggers didn t know one another well. Each one on each 
operation talked a different language. Most of them were good 
fellows but they didn t know what it was all about. It was hard 
to reach them all, so why didn t we have a convocation or a meet 
ing to which we would bring all these loggers, perhaps on a week 
end? He agreed, and as a result, we held our first logging con 
ference in the redwoods in February, 1936; and with the exception 
of three years during the war and because of a strike, we have had 
a meeting every year since then. This year we held our twentieth 
meeting in a period of twenty-three years. 

That first meeting was merely a trial. I don t think we had more 
than sixty or sixty-five people present, and of that group proba 
bly no more than half were loggers. The rest were equipment men 
who saw there was some honey around with a lot of bosses to see 
at one time. There were also the Inevitable federal and state 
men and a few professors. It was a very successful meeting. 

The next year, the California Redwood Association approved hold 
ing a second one. We actually called that the Second Redwood Log 
ging Conference R.L.C. That went on until 1947 when, because of 
the heavy logging in the Douglas fir belt right alongside the red 
wood belt, we decided to expand and we ca I led it the Redwood Region 
Logging Conference. Instead of letting the Redwood Association 
carry all the expense, we made it an entirely separate entity. 
Having been the father of it, I was made secretary-manager. I wrote 
the constitution and organized the thing, and I got wonderful sup 
port from men like Waldron Hyatt, Earl Birmingham, John Gray, Gor 
don Manary, and a lot of others. 

Maunder: This sounds as if it was completely independent and separate from 
the Pacific Logging Congress. 

Fritz: That s right. The Pacific Logging Congress is much older and covers 
the entire West. The P.L.C. started about 1907 or 09 to assemble 
loggers annually to discuss mutual problems, new equipment and 

It would seem the P.L.C. should handle our proposed meeting, but 
we felt that we had specific problems down here peculiar to the 
region, and that the Pacific Logging Congress was an overall con 
gress for the entire West. Also, we felt we could do better run 
ning our own show because we were closer to the job. I know that 
the P.L.C. manager, Archie Whisnant, didn t like the idea and took 


Fritz: me to task for setting up the redwood meeting, but later on he 

agreed that it was the best thing possible and he saw to it that 
more regional conferences were organized. As a result, we have 
the Willamette Valley Logging Conference, Northern Rocky Mountain 
Logging Conference, the Sierra-Cascade Logging Conference, the 
Olympic Logging Conference, and so on. 

Maunder: All of which directly tie in with the Pacific Logging Congress? 

Fritz: Yes. They are all absolutely separate entities, but we all agree 

and feel that the regional conferences (they were called conferences 
deliberately) should be considered to be affiliated with the Pacific 
Logging Congress, although there was no control by the P.L.C. and 
no money changed hands or anything like that. They had nothing to 
do with the program, but they were always very helpful with sug 
gestions and helped when they were asked. 

Maunder: Do you suppose then that the Redwood Region Logging Conference got 
its stimulation and original structure from the pattern which had 
already been set up north? 

Fritz: By the Pacific Logging Congress? Yes. We thought that the Pacific 
Logging Congress covered too wide a difference of logging conditions. 
Now, with the regional conferences, the P.L.C. can concentrate on 
the overall more important problems. 

Maunder: Yes. Don MacKenzie explained that to me last year at the P.L.C. 
when I made an interview with him. He said that the operators 
over in western Montana and Idaho had a feeling that the Pacific 
Logging Congress was dealing with basic problems but that the solu 



tions weren t applicable in their own area; so they found 

essary to set up 
you probably had 

an Intermountain Logging Conference, 
the same general experience here. 


it nec 
I think 

That s correct. I think the Intermountain Logging Conference was 
the second one; ours was the first. Of course, we had the advice 
and the pattern set by the P.L.C., but our problems were more 
specific and limited to a region. If we had the same program as 
the Pacific Logging Congress, it would take a month to hold a meet 
ing. Now, each conference takes up local subjects and problems. 

At the start, the R.L.C. had a very precarious hold on life because 
some of these old loggers (many of them uneducated men but very 
competent loggers) didn t take very kindly to meetings or talking 
at meetings, and to this day, it s hard to get them to talk at a 

To what extent did the manufacturers of logging equipment enter 
into this thing enthusiastically in the beginning to stimulate it? 
Did they put their backs into it as far as manpower and money was 


Fritz: At first, you must remember, it was sponsored by the California 

Redwood Association, which paid the expenses. It didn t cost very 

much, and 1 got no compensation for it over my regular retainer. 
I did it as a goodwill matter. 

But the Redwood Association objected to giving a broadcast invita 
tion to the equipment people. Because the redwood region was 
small we had probably fifty loggers and they would be easily out 
numbered by the equipment people, we wouldn t be able to hold our 
meeting because the equipment people had a penchant for entertain 
ing the loggers in their rooms and we had a hard time getting them 




So the Association decided not to keep them out, but not to invite 
them either. However, we would go outside of that rule at times 
when we wanted a certain man to talk about a specific subject, like 
torque converters. That was a new thing to be added to a truck 
and to a tractor. We also had fire equipment men come up. 

The equipment people, of course, didn t like that because it was 
duck soup for them to have so many loggers congregated together 
in one place and they could make a killing. However, the equip 
ment people were generally of the engineer type. They had a lot 
of know-how and knowledge of their machines and their capacities 
and uses. I felt it was a loss not to have them around, but we 
had to abide by the Association s edict. 

In 1947, when we became a separate entity, we decided to ask the 
equipment people to come in, and they came in wonderfully well. 
They volunteered many aids. For example, they volunteered to put 
up the entertainment. They volunteered to stop room entertain 
ment, to concentrate their entertainment in what we called "The 
Sawdust Bowl." We copied that idea and term from the P.L.C. The 
Bowl was to organize the socializing and arm-bending. It had a 
beneficial effect on the banquet too; the banquets became more 
quiet instead of being rowdy like a few of the earlier ones were. 

This has always been a problem in meetings of lumbermen and loggers, 
hasn t it? [Laughter] 

And foresters too. 

It s a problem of having a good time but at the same time, serv 
ing the real purposes of the meeting. 

It was a flashback to the old days when the logger would come to 
town for weekends and get himself gloriously tight, but that is a 
matter of history now. In the Redwood Conference, we always in 
sisted on having quiet banquet nights where we could actually hear 
a man talk and enjoy ourselves. Banquet entertainment was worked 
up from local talent, but as the Conference grew larger, the equip 
ment people took over the entertainment and obtained professionals 


Fritz: from agencies. 

It was a very excellent experience. It made one acquainted with 
a lot of loggers, and they learned that foresters did not have 
horns or tails and that they re all trying to do different parts 
of the same job. 

Maunder: Who were the men who were most instrumental, along with yourself, 
in getting this thing started? You ve mentioned Cole. 

Fritz: We had to have the backing of industry principals. I went to them 
and asked them how they felt about it, and they said, "Go to it. 
It looks like a good thing." There are very few redwood companies, 
but many more Douglas fir loggers. Altogether it made a lot. I 
believe at one time over seven hundred individuals registered. 

Some of the original individual wheel horses were Earl Birmingham, 
Elmer Baker, Gordon Manary, Dana Gray, John Gray, Waldron Hyatt, 
and others. 

Maunder: What was involved in the way of cost in the initial stages of the 
Redwood Logging Conference? 

Fritz: Nothing. We got the meeting room for nothing, provided we had 

our banquet there. The men had to buy their own banquet tickets, 
but the Redwood Association paid the expense of mailing and mimeo 
graphing and typing and so on. I got actual personal expenses. 
Nobody got a dime in salary or fees. There were no dues. 

The equipment people later put on the entertainment and sometimes 
they spent as much as $6,000 or S7,000 for one meeting, and the 
R.R.L.C., as it was later known, spent about an equal amount. 

Beginning in 1947, the secretary-manager was put on a retainer. 
At first, it was very small and finally, $300 a month. There was 
some work to do for the R.R.L.C. all through the year. Then, at 
my own request, I asked that it be cut in half, and that one-half 
be turned over to another man who would be my understudy and who 
in a short time would take over. That took place this past August 
first. Fred Landenberger, the man who followed me, is a capable 
young man and mightily interested. 

Maunder: He got this as an additional income to his regular job. 

Fritz: Yes, with the Redwood Association. Now, it looks bad to have the 
Redwood Association man doing the job for the R.R.L.C., but on the 
other hand, there s a gentlemen s agreement that they ll be kept 
absolutely separate, and the Redwood Association will not interfere 
with the R.R.L.C. Financially, of course, they re entirely separate, 

Maunder: Now the Income of the group is derived on what basis? 

Fritz: From membership fees. We didn t have any membership fee for ten 


Fritz: years, but in 1947, we had a five dollar individual membership 
and a twenty-five dollar membership for firms. There weren t 
enough lumber firms, of course, to support it, but the equipment 
people also came in on the twenty-f I ve dol lar fee and they were a 
great help, not only financially but in many other ways. The equip 
ment show that they put on was really something superior. It draws 
laymen as well as loggers and is an education for youngsters. 

Maunder: It cost them quite a good bit of money, I imagine. 

Fritz: The individual distributors sometimes spent more than $10,000 just 
on putting up their exhibits, quite aside from their contributions 
for entertainment and so on. One year, Chrysler shipped its ex 
perimental gas turbine, designed for trucks and heavy tractors, 
by ai r express. 

Maunder: Of course, these things have had a tremendous impact on the rapid 
mechanization of the industry. 

Fri-rz: Before this tape runs out, I d (ike to tell you that all the 

records, up to the time 1 retired from the R.R.L.C., are being as 
sembled at the present time, and they will be bound at my expense 
and turned over to the Bancroft Library. 

Maunder: Conferences like this must be the most effective way of getting 
across the idea of forestry. 

Fritz: The logging conferences always have a lot of forestry in them. 

They have a dual purpose: to improve logging and to improve the 
woods practices. They go together. Sometimes our whole program 
is what you might call forestry, and other times it s all logging, 
but you can t divorce the two anyway. 

If you read the description of the theme on our last program, it 

reads: "The 

tice because 

to what it s going to 

hundred years hence." 

logger is the key man in 
whatever he does on the 

putting forestry into prac- 
and earmarks that land as 

look like, not next year, but fifty or a 
And they understand that, I m sure. 

The companies that do have foresters, of course, let them meet 
with their local chapter of the S.A.F., and they talk about tech 
nical matters. Then, of course, they take it back to their com 
panies and they re always in contact with their principanF7"so 
all you need is an outfit like Western Forestry. 

Emanuel Fritz, former Governor Earl Warren, and 
Waldron Hyatt, president of the Redwood Region 
Logging Conference. The occasion was Warren s 
campaign tour for a fourth term as California s 
governor. Eureka, California, May 27, 1950. 
Photograph courtesy of The Lumberman. 



Role of the Society 










When did you join the Society of American Foresters? 

I was made a ful I member in 1919. I joined it because I thought 
every professional man should join his professional society, if 
only to keep up with what s going on in his field. 

How well do you think the Society of American Foresters has served 
you over the years? 

Very well. Its Journa I had to be supplemented, of course, by a 
lot of additional reading. The profession was still very young. 

Were you an active member from the start? 

Only since 1919. I think I was a contributor to the Journal of 
Forestry for the first time In 1924. I wrote an article with the 
man who helped me get the data; he was a student, a very able 
young man. I also wrote an article on nomenclature of trees about 
the same time. 

Who was that? Do you remember the name? 

James L. Averell. It was on a discovery that redwood growth rings 
often don t encircle the tree completely. We checked it in a num 
ber of ways, including even under a microscope. We called them 
"discontinuous rings." This article was an offshoot from my 1923 
study of young growth. 

And then you wrote a paper on this which was accepted and published 
in 1924. In what other ways did you take part in the Society in 
those early days? Did you go to meetings regularly? 

Yes, when there was one here. We had a California section. In 
1928, I believe, I was its secretary. 

Yes. What part did you play in organizing that California section? 

None. It was organized before I came to California. Being new, I 
merely I istened. 

How long had the Society s chapter been in existence here before 
you came? 

Possibly two years, perhaps more. 

Who were the leaders of the section at the time that you came? 


Fritz: There was Fritz Olmsted and Coeurt Dubois (he resigned shortly 

after that to join the consular service) and of course, the faculty 
members of the University of California. The members were very 
active and we had very lively rrretlnqs, but they were often related 
to legislation for regulation of lumoerlng. 

At that time, Pinchot decided to go to bat for legislation provid 
ing for regulation of lumbering. G. P. was drafting bills and hold 
ing discussions in Washington. I think a bill had been Intro 
duced in Congress. But 1 took no active part in such matters at 
that time. 

Maunder: Weren t there any discussions at the practical level at that time? 

Fritz: Very little in the first few years; in the late Twenties, yes. 

There were several men like Swift Berry, Richard Colgan, and later 
on, Rex Black, Dwight Birch, myself, and several others who were 
interested in private forestry and the utilization phase of for 
estry. Just as a cannery man is interested in the utilization 
phase of farm crops, so the sawmill is the converter of tree crops. 
I got very well acquainted with these foresters. I should add, 
there were more in the northwest and southeast. 

Maunder: All these men were members of the Society of American Foresters? 

Fritz: Yes, all were forestry trained. Of course, through them and also 

through my visits to the mills, I became acquainted with the opera 
ting and management personnel at the sawmills, particularly in the 
pine regions. I didn t then go to the redwoods very much. I had 
more familiarity with the pine regions southern pine, Inland Empire 
pine, and California pines. 

Maunder: So you were more in contact with this group than with the foresters 
whose interests were more in the direction of what you might call 
forest pol icy. 

Fritz: Forest policy, yes. That was the big subject and I took an early 
interest in it. 

Maunder: Did the Journal in those years reflect that major interest? 

Fritz: Yes. Policy matters got much space. Of course, there was also the 
great U.S. Forest Products Laboratory at Madison, Wisconsin. I 
visited there a number of times. Its staff had interests similar 
to mine interest in developing wood technology and its application. 
The Madison Laboratory did more to make friends for foresters than 
the administrators of the national forests. 

Maunder: Your interest in the S.A.F. in those first few years of your mem 
bership was a mixed one. You had rather great reservations, I take 
it, about the bent of most of the discussion in the group. 

Fritz: Yes. I still think the polemics some of us engaged in were not what 





forestry needed most. It needed friends among forest owners. We 
spent too much time alienating the people we needed most. We were a 
sophomoric lot. I have always taken an active interest in the Society; 
though retired since 1954, I m still interested in what the Society 
does and particularly what it does rot do. 

I think the Society at the present time is in a depression, a men 
tal depression. It has been (particularly its Washington office) 
inclined toward preserving a status quo. Of course, if it should 
strike out as it did in the past, crusading without a sound basis, 
I would certainly become more articulate again. The Society is 
actually undergoing a change quietly. The Western Forestry and 
Conservation Association, the American Forestry Association, and 
the Forest Products Research Society are carrying much of the load 
and doing fine jobs. 

The forestry profession itself is changing. There is a stronger 
professional attitude; it is getting to be more realistic. This 
will ultimately be reflected in the Journal of Forestry. So a 
quiet period may be a good thing. The large number of members in 
private employ are showing strength. 

What are these other organizations doing which in your estimation 
the Society should perhaps be doing? What show of leadership are 
they demonstrating? 

Take Western Forestry, for example. That s a short name for Western 
Forestry and Conservation Association, headquartered in Portland, 
Oregon. It has the same objectives as the Society of American For 
esters but its membership is professional only in part. It is a 
working membership and it operates on the friendly and realistic 
approach, and by that approach, it has been able to get into its 
membership many companies and company representatives from the 
principals on down. 

It actually was started by private owners and was one of the first 
to really attack the fire problem realistically in the West and 
be successful; and if it hadn t been organized, I think it would 
have been many more years before we would have gotten laws like the 
McSweeney-McNary and the Clarke-McNary laws. 

In that organization are men like E. T. Allen, Clyde Martin, Ed 
Stamm, George Drake, Truma n Collins, Ed Heacox, G. F. Jewitt 
foresters and timber company managers. Timberland owners pay on 
an acre basis. Nonowners, like myself, pay a small membership 
fee. Most of the private company representatives have very res 
ponsible jobs and are men of real ability who combined courage 
with their convictions and dealt directly with their own principals. 
The men that I have mentioned have been extremely successful in 
their particular companies, and actually put forestry into the 
woods where it belonged rather than at the desks in Washington or 
those of forestry school teachers. 





What has characterized the Society s activity as opposed to this 
other approach that you say has been made by other forestry or 

I felt that the Society was following Pinchot too blindly. There 
was not sufficient understanding of the forestry and lumbering 
problems and of economics. Many members of the S.A.F. felt that 
a man in private industry, if he was in logging or milling, was not 
a forester. That was quite the opposite of what is true of engi 
neering where, if a man goes into mining, or blast furnace work, 
or rolling mill work, or structural design, or structural fabri 
cation, he is still an engineer; and even if he goes into selling, 
he s still an engineer. 

I have met some of my old engineering classmates who are salesmen. 
Their engineering training has been not only valuable but indis 
pensable. Too many of the early-day foresters let their love for 
the forest overcome their practical understanding of forestry prac 
tices. That is rather strange because the earliest foresters like 
Henry Graves and Gifford Pinchot were trained in Europe, in France 
and in Germany, and they should have learned over there that the 
German foresters grow trees only to be cut to make useful and 
needed products. It was a crop with them, while with us it was a 
beautiful object that only God can make. 

The aesthetic has always been strong among foresters, but the re 
alities cannot be overlooked. I must confess I was influenced by 
the appeal of the forest in selecting forestry for my profession, 
but my engineering background probably brought about a balance. 

In spite of this feeling that you say characterized the thought 
and direction of the Society, still you, as a man representative 
of forest utilization, were a candidate on at least one occasion 
for the presidency of the organization; and for some period of 
time you were also editor of the Society s Journal of American 
Forestry. This would seem to indicate to me that there was some 
recognition of your special field and interest. It wasn t a com 
plete concentration on the other. How would you reconcile those 

Fritz: You probably didn t know it, but at the University of California 

every member of the forestry faculty is a "professor of forestry" 
not a professor of lumbering, or of logging, or of silviculture or 
wood technology. I think that was a mistake, but to this day I m 
regarded by the lumber people as a forester and preservationist 
and not as one who taught the engineering aspects of sawmill ing, 
forest products, and the properties and uses of wood. 

Perhaps I should have emphasized my own interest in the engineei 
ing aspects of lumbering and forestry in the early days, but I liked 
to feel that I was a forester plus an engineer. However, it didn t 
work out that way. Even at the University of California when I 


Fritz: wanted to expand lumbering or wood technology, I was voted down. 
One time I suggested we should have a tes M ng machine so we could 
test our own native woods, but we never got it. I was told, "We 
should not duplicate equipment a ready In the engineering department." 

In 1925, I was working on plans for a forest products laboratory 
for the University, but one day was told to quit further planning 
because "it is not the function of the University to make money for 
the lumber industry!" That struck me as strange because we were in 
the College of Agriculture, and the College of Agriculture had a 
fruit products laboratory where it was trying to find out how 
better to can and prepare fruits, how to refrigerate them and so 
on. That certainly was to the benefit of the canners and refrig- 
eraters, not necessarily to make more money for them but to ad 
vance the technique of the preparation of fruit products. And 
certainly the forest products laboratory was a parallel except 
that it dealt with trees that produce wood rather than apples 
and other fruits. 

Maunder: In other words, I believe you are saying that the profession of 
forestry has differed from other professions In the agricultural 
sciences. Has it been oriented through a long period of its 
development to the idea of preservation rather than to utilization? 

Fritz: It would be unfair to say foresters Ignored utilization. From 
the earliest days some of them found more appeal in utilization. 
The Forest Products Laboratory had foresters on its staff, and 
there were others who studied and wrote reports on that subject. 
One of the big criticisms of lumbering was its apparent and, to 
some extent, real wastefulness. Some of the early reports con 
cerned "closer utilization," as a conservation measure. There 
was waste indeed. But much of the tree cannot be used. 

If lumber prices had been higher there would be a wider spread 
between the prices of various grades. The buyer would be more in 
fluenced by price to buy the lower grades. At present much material 
must be burned to get rid of it. The reduction of waste is largely 
a matter of economics. Some day there will be no refuse burners at 
sawmills because the lower grades at lower prices serve the purpose 
as well as better grades. Furthermore, as more pulp and paper mills 
are needed and built, what is now waste will be the raw material 
for paper pulp. 

It can be said of the forestry profession that it was largely for 
est preservation and management minded. The foresters who went 
into lumbering were badly outnumbered. 

In the Redwood Region Logging Conference, which I started in 1935 
or 1936, I constantly bore down on this fact: that the logger and 
forester must work together because, while the forester may make 
plans for the ultimate permanence of lumbering, the logger can make 
or break any forestry plans the foresters may have made and gotten 


Fritz: approved by the owners. 



Was there then within the ranks of professional foresters a clear 
line between the two philosophies with two groups standing In op 
position to one another? 

Well, as I said earlier, I think that was manifested by the atti 
tude of public foresters towSrds the foresters who quit to go into 
private service as loggers or as mill men. Let me add that in 1928 
when Colonel Greeley joined the West Coast Lumberman T s Association, 

very well-known Forest Service man asked 
that Association very recently. Does it 
has gone over to the enemy?" 

me, "You ve worked for 
mean that Colonel Greeley 

Well, I bristled, because Colonel Greeley just wasn t that kind of 
a man, and the Colonel would never have gone with the West Coast 
Association merely to be an Association secretary, but he saw an 
opportunity to spread the foresters philosophy as to timber man 
agement, and I think we must agree the Colonel was very successful. 

Perhaps the fact that the Forest Service is a federal bureau and, 
like most bureaus, thinks in terms of its own permanence and growth, 
Its members thought of forestry in terms of federal control. 

Maunder: Emanuel, what I m driving for here at this particular juncture is 
simply this: somewhere In the history of the American forestry 
profession there came a recognition of the fact that there was 
more to forestry than just the idea of growing and preserving the 
trees. There came into recognition by a few individuals the idea 
that forestry should serve the function of utilization. 

I wish you could help us pinpoint the origins of this trend, single 
out the people who gave it first expression, and let us know any 
thing you can recall about how this discussion made its way into 
the Journal of Forestry and other publications so that it became a 
subject "of deFate within the forestry profession. 

Fritz: Well, El wood, I have already given you some names, but I think you 
should credit Colonel Greeley as the Number One man who started 
foresters to thinking in more pragmatic terms while at the same 
time converting timber owners to forest management for permanence. 
It never became a real debate, but here and there were some indi- 
dual foresters forestry trained men not necessarily practicing 
forestry, although it included both categories who, whenever an 
opportunity presented itself, spoke in behalf of lumbering as a 
legitimate business. 

For example, I think Nelson C. Brown had a considerable impact be 
cause in his contact with foresters he tried to promote the idea 
that logging and milling were a necessity. Then there was Kenneth 
J. Pearce of the University of Washington. He did his part. Then 
there was Oregon State College, particularly Dean George Peavy, and 


Fritz: there were a couple of men like Matthews at Michigan, Grondal at 

Washington, Bryant at Yale, and several others; and there were men 
in private employ who, when they had an opportunity, presented the 
case. I did it at the University of California. It was a sure 
way of becoming unpopular with the H ublic foresters. 

Since I have mentioned some names, I must add that none of these 
men gave up his original professional forestry principles and acted 
as an apologist for the lumber industry. Someone must some day 
write out the impact these men had toward instituting private for 
estry. It wasn t easy. I have been, myself, labeled an apologist 
for the lumberman, perhaps because what little 1 have written 
sounds like I was covering up for what the industry was not doing. 

Actually, one had to learn salesmanship, to credit a prospect for 
what he ^s_ doing rather than shouting from the roof tops what is 
not being done. I think I, for one, knew more about why forestry 
was slow in taking hold on private lands. When you know and honestly 
recognize the difficulties, you are in better shape to know what ap 
proach to take. 

Maunder: Would you say then that this had its beginnings on the campuses 

of our colleges where there were either schools of forestry estab 
lished or departments of forestry? 

Fritz: I think much of the impact really came from the schools because 

the school men had independence and some of them elected to speak 
up. I think I was regarded as one of the articulate ones, which 
wasn t to my advantage. It made all of us suspect as being chattels 
of the lumber industry, which was entirely wrong. 

In the many years I was a forestry advisor to the lumber industry, 
I was never asked to make a slanted statement in its behalf. I 
don t believe any of my colleagues in teaching had a different ex 
perience. The foresters in private industry had to be more cir 
cumspect because their own principals were against antagonizing 
public foresters, but gradually here and there, one of them would 
speak up. 

Journal o_f_ Forestry Work 

Fry: I d like to move on to your accepting an associate editorship of 
the Journal of Forestry, in 1922. I think this was when Zon was 
editor-in-chief, is that right? And then later on Dana came, in 
October of 1928. 

Fritz: Fernow was editor-in-chief when I became one of the associate 
editors. I m quite sure it was Fernow. [Editor from 1917 to 
February, I923U 


Fry: You had the experience of working under all three of them. Ac 
cording to the record, you vjere an assoc.iate editor from 1922 to 
1930, then editor from October, 1930 to December, 1932. 

Fritz: Right. 

Maunder: What did associate editor mean? What did you do? 

Fritz: Each associate editor represented a special field like silvicul 
ture, protection and utilization, and was expected to look for 
articles in his specific field and to help edit them. Actually, 
Zon did very little in the way of submitting articles to his as 
sociate editors. He did it in the field of utilization with me, 
but he apparently had very bad luck with the others, or he did not 
use them. Their papers were slow coming back, and he didn t have 
too much to publish at that time anyway, so as soon as he got a 
manuscript, he ran it, with the result that some of them were not 
edited at all. 

Maunder: This was in the Twenties? 

Fritz: Yes. Zon followed Fernow in 1923. I wrote a few editorials for 
Zon and would try to get foresters to prepare articles. Zon and 
I did correspond on matters affecting the Journal . Serving the 
magazine was purely a labor of love; there was no compensation 
and no expense account. But I enjoyed It. I must add, in fair 
ness to Zon s associate editors and mine, that since many of them 
were in public employ and were in the field a good deal of the 
time, they did not have much spare time to devote to the Journal . 

Maunder: Did you work then for a spell under Fernow when he was an editor? 

Fritz: Well, "worked under him," you can t say that; and you can t say 
I worked with him. The editor in those days, you must remember, 
was a volunteer editor. 

Maunder: That was true for some time thereafter too, wasn t it? 

Fritz: That was true through my editorship and partly through the next 
one, I think. 

Fry: Were you always in wood technology, in your capacity as associate 

Fritz: Yes. Wood technology and lumbering. 

Maunder: What was the system in those days? Would the acting editor refer 
to each one of you, as specialists in certain fields, articles 
which had been submitted in those fields? 

Fritz: That was the theory. It didn t work out well. 
Maunder: How did it work out? 


Fritz: Fernow was the type of man who I think wouldn t want to take the 

time to send an article all over the country and then wait for the 
man at the other end to edit It. He d go ahead and do It himself. 
Sometimes articles went In ther- , especially under Zon, without 
very much editing at all. 

Fry: What was Zon like as an editor? 

Fritz: Zon was associate editor, then editor. He was kind of an oddity. 
A very able man, and a man I thought I had to watch very closely, 
he wasn t above arrogating credit to himself when he didn t de 
serve it. However, the load wasn t heavy. Very few articles in 
my field were submitted so I didn t have very much editing to do 
or commenting on whether an article should be published or not. 

In the first years of your association with the editorial staff 
of the Journal , what were your specific tasks? 

I tried to get articles in my own field. 












How did you go about doing that? 

People I knew. 

Writing to them? 

Writing to them or speaking to them. 

Suggesting articles that they might write? 


What results did you get from this effort? 

Very little. 

I saw a letter from Fernow, dated April 4, 1922, to you. This was 
a month after you were appointed and Fernow said, "It will hardly 
be necessary for you to look out for articles, which so far we 
have secured without solicitation." 

Fritz: Yes. Well, he didn t say, articles on what subject. You could 

get any number of articles on the philosophy of forestry. That s 
what most writers in those days wrote about, as much as to say, 
"Forestry is a fine thing; you ought to practice It on your land." 



I was wondering if you could comment on the ways that these three 
editors handled the Journal of Forestry. 

Well, sometimes I would feel sorry for men like Zon and Fernow 


cause, as I mentioned, sometimes the basket was awfully low in good 
articles. There would be articles like: Pinchot or other S.A.F. 






members would give a talk somewhere to some conservation agency 
and that would be an article. Or someone would write something 
on one of his efforts to develop Interest In forestry. Somebody 
else would write an article on federal policy: should the govern 
ment own all timber or should it be .:!! private? It was a natural 
thing in the formative years. 

In those years, 
that determined 


it wasn t so much a particular editorial policy 
what went in. It was just what the editor could 

Yes what was sent to him. During my own editorship, I used to 
write a lot of letters for articles and I think I interviewed 
more people than I wrote to, begging for articles. I presume that 
Dana did the same thing because Dana was a very good editor. And 
Smith, my successor, was a very hard worker. Zon and Dana had 

less time to devote to the Journal 
were beautiful essays. 

than I had. Smith s editorials 

What did you look for in articles that you were trying to get for 
the Journal ? 




Well, I was satisfied to publish an article even though the thing 
that was proposed, or explained, was still experimental --though the 
authors weren t sure whether it was going to work or not. I wanted 
an article on what was being done right then. 

My editorship was so long ago that I don t recall very much about 
the articles published in the first twenty years. Some of my own 
contributions as articles were in the same class polemics although 
I was generally on the unpopular side. 

Well, you were seeking for a more scientific type of article, 
that right? 


I wasn t so much interested in the scientific aspects alone (I 
wouldn t be against it), but when you go into real scientific work, 
you are taking up a subject which might require ten years to get 
an answer. I felt that we had problems right now today in trying 
to sell forestry. Why not concentrate on the immediate problems 
at once and let the glamour projects wait until all of us learned 
more about the nature of the problems and how they should be ap 

The problems I thought should have high priority were in the field 
of forest management. Fortunately, a few management projects were 
set up very early, but as I said earlier, they take years to yield 
results. An outstanding project was the ponderosa pine project at 
Fort Valley Forest Experiment Station, under G. A. Pearson, in 
northern Arizona, started in 1909. 

We got many policy articles. Most of them were published, perhaps 



Maunder : 









And this opened up the whole question of forest policy in the 
Journal as I understand it, about the first time It had really 
become a subject of wide dialogue between members of S.A.F. 

Did you get many scientific article; during your chief editorship? 

There were very few forestry scientists in the first two decades 
of American forestry. The Forest Products Laboratory did much 
scientific work on wood. The Lab had to feel its way, just as did 
the foresters, but it had a real advantage. It could work on pro 
jects that would yield at least preliminary results in a few years, 
whereas si I vicultural research would require many years. The basic 
work at the Lab in those early years was also a training ground. 
To study wood was somewhat new in the U.S. That the Lab built a 
strong foundation is evidenced by the reports and research articles 
that now appear in the Forest Products Journal, twenty-five years 
or more younger than the Journal of Forestry. The Lab had its own 
outlet a long series of technical bulletins, notes and articles. 
The Journal printed some. 

Did your role change in any way in the period from 1922 to 30? 
No, there wasn t any change. 

Did you have a feeling you were being groomed to become the editor, 
or were you ever told by ari^ of your predecessors that this might be 
the case? 

No. In fact, I wasn t even in California when the invitation came 
to me. I was at Cornell at the time as an exchange professor, and 
I didn t have the slightest idea I was being considered for the 
chief editorship. It hadn t even occurred to me that I would want 
to be the editor. I had been on the board of editors of the annual 
year book of the graduating class at Polytechnic Institute in Bal 
timore, but I wouldn t consider that editing. It s something a kid 
just likes to do. (Incidentally, it was never published.) 

Wei I , what was 
the Journal? 

the first hint that you were going to be editor of 

I think it was a letter or telegram I got from Paul G. Redington, 
then president of the S.A.F. 

Redington was in San Francisco then, head of that Forest Service 

He was president of the S.A.F. 

And was he also head of the Forest Service s California Region at 
that time? 

Yes. Now maybe I am wrong. Perhaps Redington had already left the 
U.S.F.S. to take the directorship of U.S. Biological Survey. 




Did he make a persona I appeal to you to take on the job? 

I don t remember. It came to me as such a surprise, I thought, 
"Well, maybe he s trying out several. He just wants to see how 
I feel about it." 

You were succeeding Sam Dana, weren t you? 
until 1930? 

Was Sam editor up 

Fritz: That s right, 1928 to 1930. Dana was Zon s successor. Dana was, 

a very able man. At that time 
carried the Journal through 

of course, we I I -known as a writer and 

we published only nine numbers. Sam 

June. I picked it up with the October, 1930, number. Dana had too 

many duties as dean at the University of Michigan, so he asked to 

be relieved. Paul G. Redington told me later when I asked him why 

I was appointed, "Well, Dana said that you were the only associate 

editor who ever gave him any help." So I was appointed. 

Maunder: In other words, there was no controversy that caused Sam Dana to 

Fritz: Oh no, none whatever. Dana was one of forestry profession s best. 
He had his hands in a lot of things, and the Journal was dropping 
back as to the date of publication. That editorship to me was a 
very expensive thing, expensive In view of the value of a dollar 
in those days. 

Maunder: How do you mean? You were sacrificing the time you could have been 
using to make additional income for yourself? 

Fritz: I had the pleasure of doing it, but it came at a time when I was 

to write a report on a study I made in 1928-1929 on Pacific Lumber 
Company land. Its purpose was to find out what becomes of the wood 
in redwood trees: how much of it is lumber, how much is shingle 
bolts, how much of it is something else, and how much is left in 
the woods. 

I wanted very much to write that report because of its immediate 
interest to foresters and the lumber people. That was something 
that touched their pocketbooks. I felt such a project would help 
sell an experiment in selective cutting. Its data was very help 
ful for some years. I am going to turn the raw data over to the 
Bancroft Library for safekeeping. 

Fry: You became editor-in-chief when you were teaching one semester at 
Cornell, is that right? 

Fritz: I have to think hard. It has been a long time ago. 1 feel sure 
it was early 1930 when Redington wrote to me. Yes, because I had 
the teaching semester. I was in Florida with relatives in January. 
The spring semester began sometime late In that month, and I taught 
at Cornell until June. Then my family came up from Florida and met 


Fritz: me in Ithaca. We drove back to California, and on the way back, 
I stopped at a number of places where there were foresters and 
talked to them about what they thought of the Journal of Forestry, 
what I could do to make It more useful to field men, and its policy 
and whatnot. I had some ideas what the policy- might be, from my 
associate editorship, but I needed to know what others thought. 

Maunder: I take it that the editor determined this. 

Fritz: He did, within reasonable limits of course. 

Maunder: He was not governed by the S.A.F. Council or . . . . ? 

Fritz: It would have been a fine thing if the Council had taken some active 
interest. I went to one Council meeting in December, 1932. The 
Councilors talked about everything but the Journal , which was the 
principal output of the S.A.F., until I brought it up when our time 
was running out. I thought it showed ingratitude to a volunteer 
editor. So I thought, "To hell with it," and resigned. 

Maunder: When you went to the editorship, you did it of course as a strictly 

unpaid volunteer within an organization which had two paid employees, 

and these were in Washington, D.C. an executive secretary and a 
business manager. 

Fritz: They had a business manager, Miss Warren. Her name was Hicks at 

that time; then she was married and divorced, and she retained her 
married name, Warren. There was also a paid secretary at that time. 

Maunder: And what sort of a person was Miss Warren as you remember her then? 

Fritz: I would say a dynamo. She took a sort of a mother-hen attitude 

over the foresters that she had to deal with. We always got along 
well except for one occasion which was very embarrassing to me. I 
was a new editor and I was three thousand miles away in California 
when it happened. 

I went to Baltimore, where the Journal 
Press (I think they still print it). 
remained a couple of weeks, visiting 


On my drive West from Ithaca, 

was printed by the Monumental 

And I had relatives there and 

back and forth between Washington and Baltimore, and of course, 

called on Miss Warren and the printer. I told her I wanted the 

book to be exactly like Dana left it, no change in paper, format, 

or type. 

Well, the first issue came out that way, but the November and De 
cember issues came out on "pulp." It stank. When I opened my copy, 
I thought, "What the devil have I done wrong!" It would give ev 
erybody the impression that the Journal of Forestry was just another 
cheap pulp magazine. 

So I wrote to Miss Warren and protested the change in my instruc 
tions as to paper. 


Maunder: Had she taken it upon herself to order it? 

Fritz: Yes, to save some money for the Journal by changing to a cheap 

grade of paper. She was a keer business manager. When the Decem 
ber issue came out, it was really bulky. Dana told me he had about 
thirty articles in his file, and he said, "None of them are good 
but that s all you ve got to start with." So I thought I d clear 
the decks right away and print them all, good or bad, just because 
I didn t want any author to feel hurt. Paper was already bought 
for two issues. The December number looked bad because of the 
paper and the book s bulk. 

Maunder: What reaction did you get from the members? 

Fritz: Very, very little. They probably thought it was a matter of 
economy. But it was one of those cases where it is better to 
forget it. 

Maunder: What responsibilities did the people in the office in Washington 
have to assist you in the job of editing and publishing the 

Fritz: Well, I don t know what they were asked to do, but obviously Miss 

Warren was the business manager and therefore had to watch the cost. 
She meant well. She had to look after all dealings with the printer 
and keeping books on costs. 

I tried to start a program of getting advertising to help meet 
costs but I was voted down by the Council. They said the Journa I 
of Forestry is a professional magazine of a high quality, and they 
dTdn t want advertisements of equipment, and so forth, in our maga 
zine. Well, now the Journal gets a handsome help from advertise 

Fry: It must have been a tremendous strain on you to handle the editor 
ship and your faculty duties as well. How did you work it out? 

Fritz: It didn t work out too we I I for me; it proved to be a very expen 
sive experience. I lost out at the University because I gave the 
Journal too much time. I put in many a week of thirty hours, 
mostly at night. It advanced the need for eye glasses. I was a 
fast reader then and I could edit very rapidly. In addition to my 
other reading and teaching, It was rather bad for eyes. 

Maunder: Was there any stipend involved in doing this work? 

Fritz: Not a penny. I figured it cost me all the fees I could have re 
ceived from consulting work. I hadn t been doing very much in the 
consulting field at that time, but it was enough to make it pos 
sible for me to stay at the University of California. All Univer 
sity personnel took a ten percent salary cut during the depression. 

Maunder: How long were you chief editor of the Journal ? 


Fritz: Nearly three years, and that s a story in itself. I discovered 
at the University of California that even though I was told that 
my editorship was considered a legitimate University faculty mem 
ber s work and would be accepte^ in I leu of research, I suddenly 
found out that It was not the case. The dean himself told me that. 




Fry : 

At the same time, I was a little fed up by the lack of interest in 
the Journal on the part of the S.A.F. Council. I attended Council 
of course, and when it came my turn to talk about the 

Journal and 

what it required, I got very little response, so I 

felt I was wasting my time. 

Maunder: This was, of course, during three of the hardest years of the De 
pression, and part of the trouble lay at that point, didn t it? 

Fritz: Not exactly. They were not years of stress for the Society of 

American Foresters. In fact, we were pretty well off during the 
Depression. Our membership increased very rapidly because so many 
men went to forestry schools merely to get jobs with a CCC camp as 
a foreman, or a WPA camp. For example, at the University of Cali 
fornia we had, as I recall it, 375 students in the year 1937, and 
many of them became members of the Society. In fact, the secre 
tary of the Society wrote me once that the University of California 
had the best record of alumni joining the S.A.F. It was one of the 
voluntary duties I took on to get the alumni interested in the S.A.F. 
and in joining. 

Maunder: When you resigned from the editorship, this really put the issue 
rather squarely before the Council, did it not, to face the fact 

that it needed to hire a full-time editor? 

Well, 1 think they were stunned. Stunned, not because I was leav 
ing, but because they suddenly realized some other provisions must 
be made. 

To find somebody to take it? 

To find somebody to take my 
the prob I em of publishing a 
to the interest of the editor" 

place and do it quickly, and to solve 
Journal of quality. Quality is related 

and the time he can give it. I really 
was sorry to quit the editing. I enjoy that kind of work. Even in 
my retired days, I help writers of articles and books. Just recently 
I went over a manuscript on redwood for a botany teacher. 

Franklin Reed followed as editor the next month, January of 1933. 

That s right, 
issues, and I 

we I I and I iked him. 
He needed help. 

Of course, I had a lot of articles ready for future 
helped on the editing that spring. I knew Reed very 

He wasn t a self-starter but he had good ideas. 

When you were editor of the Journal , do you remember the incident 
of the Charles Lathrop Pack Foundation offering to subsidize 


Fry: publication of the Journal , and the Society apparently turning 
this down even though you wanted it? I was wondering what the 
story was on that and why it was turned down. 

Fritz: That is very hazy in my recollection. I don t remember that well, 
but I m not surprised that it was turned down. 

Fry: Reed wrote a letter to Pack and said that they couldn t accept 
the offer. 

Maunder: Why are you not surprised that it was turned down? 

Fritz: Let me ask a question. What was the date of that episode? 

Maunder: It was in the period of your editorship. 

Fry: Yes. You were editor but I don t have the exact date of the letter. 

Fritz: There was a celebrated controversy between H. H. Chapman and Pack. 
You can t go into these controversies without bringing in Chapman. 
But wasn t it the American Forests Magazine, rather than the Journal 
of Forestry? It would have been a good thing for the S.A.F. at that 
time to have more non-foresters among its membership. There was a 
goodly number of men in the lumber and related business who had a 
serious interest in forestry but who couldn t understand why for 
esters had to be so pugnacious about Its introduction on privately 
owned lands. They might have been a leavening and Informative in- 
f luence. 

Pack was a multimillionaire and a very fine man. He had a real 
desire to do something for the public. He was also a practical 
man, the kind that looks for action rather than words. At the same 
time, he felt that he ought to have a chance to convey his views to 
the public, and his outlet would have been the American Forestry 
Association magazine. 

Now there again, my memory is hazy, but I think he was president 
for several terms of the A.F.A. Then Chapman got into the picture 
and the fight got so hot that Pack just threw the whole thing in 
the scrap basket as far as he was concerned, withdrew from the 
American Forestry Association and started an association and maga 
zine of his own. He called it the American Nature Association. 
The magazine was called Nature. 

Maunder: American Tree Association. 
Fritz: American Tree Association, yes. 

Maunder: And Emanuel, let me interject something here. There was a con 
troversy, but it wasn t only H. H. Chapman. There were on the Board 
of Directors of the American Forestry Association a number of men, 
and among them the forester of the American Forestry Association, 
Ovid M. Butler, who were quite unhappy with the way Mr. Pack was 








Fry : 


trying to run the show and direct the editorial policy of the 
magazine. And finally it came to a showdown and Pack s influence 
was removed and his financial support was lost and .... 

It was in the early Twenties. 

That would have preceded Pack s offer to back the S.A.F. 

Right. And I think the reasons for S.A.F. being rather standoff 
ish of Pack s offer was the memory of the experience earlier with 
the American Forestry Association. 

Let s go back a little. I started to tell you that when I came 
back West by automobile, I called on the Journal s office and on 
the printers, also I called on the Forest Service. One man (I 
won t mention his name) asked, "What s going to be your policy on 
the Journal?" I said, "I m going to continue the editorials and 
di rect them to the fact that forestry is based on the cutting of 
trees for products and that as long as people are cutting down 
trees, that s where foresters are needed. There must be a more 
realistic relationship between foresters and timber owners. I 
shall try to bring the two together." 

My argument was that closer utilization, for example, was to the 
interest of the forester. He should be interested in the future 
of doors, wooden window frames and sash, and the future of lath 
and the future of shingles, because all make for closer utilization. 
The closer the utilization, the better the realization in dollars 
and therefore the better the possibilities for forestry. 

So you wanted this to be the primary aim of the Journa I ? 

No. My main interest in forestry originally was silviculture. I 
had been in the Experiment Station in Flagstaff, Arizona, the first 
forest experiment station in the U.S. Silviculture, economics, and 
so forth, must be given proper coverage. 

Well, what I meant was, when you first became editor of the Journal , 


did you see as the primary policy publishing articles which could 
be of practical use in the field of utilization and timber manage 

Absolutely. Like the article I asked A. E. Wackerman to write on 
the Crosset Lumber Company s forestry program. His company declined 
Wackerman the permission because they wanted more time to be sure 
their forestry policy was effective. Such an article would have 
been stimulating in the promotion of forestry. Then the Urania 
Lumber Company in Urania, Louisiana. 

Henry Hardtner. 

Henry Hardtner was a pioneer forestry convert in the southeastern 


Fritz: United States. Then there was the Great Southern Lumber Company. 
They had actually started after World War I to plant on cutover 
land, which was quite an undertaking. So I wanted articles on 

Fry: And instead, what did you get? 

Fritz: I started to tell you of the U.S.F.S. man who asked what would be 
my policy on the Journa I . He reacted with "If that is the case, 
I ll see that you do not get past three issues." 

Maunder: Did you ever try to get an article out of Goodman up in Wisconsin? 

Fritz: I think I got something from him. C. B. Goodman, wasn t it? 

Maunder: Yes. 

Fritz: Did you ever meet him? 

Maunder: No, I wish I had. He must have been one of the most interesting 
men in the industry. His personal papers or those of his company 
would have historical value. 

Fritz: He was a short man but vigorous and a delightful gentleman. At 

meetings of lumbermen, he would listen to their arguments and dis 
putes with the government and quietly get up and say his little 
piece, and point out the obligations each lumberman has. Goodman 
was one of about twenty I saw in action at one time or another who 
were well-balanced and farsighted. and had the guts to make their 
ideas known to their fellow lumbermen. 

Fry: And these were the ones that you had hopes of getting papers from? 

Fritz: Yes, not necessarily from them personally, but from their employees- 
the company foresters or woods managers. 

Fry: The man who was really doing it. 

Fritz: I got an article on the McGifford loader. You know that is the 

loader that hoists itself off the rails. I didn t want it because 
it was a McGifford loader but because the Science and Industry 
Museum in Chicago had put up quite an exhibit depicting lumbering 
from way back to the present. Every machine was built in minia 
ture. The young man who organized the exhibit was a forester who 
eventually became one of Rand McNally s top cartographers. I hoped 
to get other articles of a similar nature which would show the mar 
riage of lumbering and forestry instead of just a long drawn out 
cold war. 

Maunder: In a sense, you were representing the interest and the inclination 
of what was just becoming a merging industrial forestry. And as 
such, you were still running against the currents of the older 


Maunder: PInchotvian group whose inclination was more along other lines. 

Isn t this where the war really developed between the two groups, 
and weren t you in the eye of the hurricane there in the editing 






The way you put it, it looks like I was at the end of one and at 
the beginning of another. There was too much of polemics and of 
public excoriation of the lumber industry. I m not defending the 

lumber industry. 
dustry reacted as 

I knew better than men like Chapman why the 
it did toward foresters. 


When they discovered that I taught lumbering and wood technology, 
I could sit at their meetings and join in their discussion. In 
time, I had broken the ice. I didn t break the ice on forestry 
but my part in lumbering served as a catalyst to get a .favorable 
ear for forestry. 

Did you usually write the editorials? 
Whi le I was editor? 
As editor-in-chief. 

I think I wrote every one. You have probably seen one there that 
was called "Lath, Sash and Shingles." 

Yes, but I didn t read it. 

Another was on shop grades. Now the average forester knew nothing 
about those things, and yet trees were not cut to make lath solely 
unless it was by a small mill in very small timber. Lath was all 
made of stuff that ordinarily would have gone to the fire. 

There was a time when you couldn t even afford to bring in some 
kinds of logs, and they would have to be left In the woods. Times 
have changed. The better lumber prices make it possible to bring 
in the stuff that, in former years, had to be burned. The irony 
of it is that conservationists who once condemned lumbermen for 
their wastefulness now characterize them as being so greedy, they 
even use the bark. 

What you were trying to do in your editorials and in the Journal 
was to disseminate this knowledge so that the people who had the 
power to do something about it in industry might conduct their 
forestry practices better for utilization? 

No, those editorials are written primarily for foresters, to let 
them know who butters their bread. Who butters any forester s 
bread? It s the man who owns the timber and has to convert it 
into a useful product. Now, If he hires a forester to supervise 
the marking of trees to be cut or to grow another crop, the money 
the forester gets as wages, or as a fee, sti I I comes out of that 
lumberman s pocket. That s what a lot of early-day foresters 









didn t understand, or didn t want to understand. So those edito 
rials were directed largely toward the forestry profession itself. 

Your very first editorial I think It was your first one--you 
really qot Into trouble. Do you remember that? 

The Interior Department. 

You re right. It was the Interior Department. You said the Interior 
Department had an infamous reputation, and who was it somebody 
wanted you to withdraw this, and you did reprint it. 

I don t think 1 used the term infamous. The Department has had 
some very good secretaries. Paul Redington, the S.A.F. president, 
called me long distance from Washington. He reported that many 
Washington foresters objected to my description of the Department 
of Interior. I liked Redington but he scared easily. We were 
good friends in Arizona and New Mexico, and continued to be when 
he was transferred to California as Regional Forester. He was very 
friendly to me. Incidentally, Redington at that time was no longer 
in the U.S.F.S. but was director of the Biological Survey; at least, 
that s my recollection. 

He had asked you to be the editor too, hadn t he? 

Yes. I thought, 
out. Who am I? 
forestry. " 

"This fellow is in a jam. I ve 
Just an editor trying to make a 

got to help him 
place for American 

So did you change your editorial? 

I gave him permission to reprint a revised version from which the 
offending adjective was omitted. On Redington s initiative, the 
revised version was mailed to every Journal subscriber with the 
request that he substitute it for the original. The new editorial 
also carried a tag stating that the editor sincerely regrets having 
cast aspersions on a good department like Interior. It was a damn 
lie because, In the sense that there was any aspersion, it was a 
deserved criticism, and furthermore, I thought it was double-cross 
ing me by the Forest Service people when they themselves had been 
condemning the Interior Department ever since the days of Pinchot. 

It was the rankest kind of hypocrisy. But there was something in 
the wind, possibly political, of which I was not aware. It must 
have concerned the Hoover administration plan for reorganization, 
and the foresters were afraid of the Interior Department. 

And you wrote Chapman that you would be happy to resign if asked 
to by Redington. 

Did 1 say that? Chapman made that episode a criticism of Redington. 
Yes, and you d just been in the editorship for a month. 


Fritz: What s the date of that letter? 

Fry: It occurred In November, 1930, and we have it numbered in file 
S3:2. It s a letter to Chapman, but the letter regarding this 
November editorial might have been \<~\ December. 

Fritz: I d just love to see that again. As I say, I ve made an awful 

lot of mistakes and that was one of the worst. I regret to this 
day that I permitted the change. It was hypocritical of the Wash 
ington foresters to take such umbrage. I still believe some boot 
licking was involved. It was foolish also of Redington to send 
out a revised editorial and to ask that it be substituted. It ac 
complished only one thing it called attention to the situation. 

Fry: Well, I guess what doesn t show up in the letters, you might want 
to clarify on the tape. Somehow you did send out these reprinted 
copies leaving out this phrase. 

Fritz: I did not send it out. This was done from Washington. I received 
only the copy to be substituted in my copy of the Journa I . 

Fry: And then you heard again from them that what they wanted from Red 
ington was this replaced In" every Journal that was mailed out and 
you refused to do this. Thl s was" what you felt was too much. You had 
already permitted your regrets to have been printed. 

Fritz: I don t recall this, but If [ did refuse \ must have had second 
thoughts on having acquiesced to the change, ht was silly. You 
take, for example, a lawyer would ask a question in court knowing 
that the judge would disallow It. But he gets the question before 
the jury. It s the same thing. So you ve got your Journa I , you ve 
got my editorial in it, then you get the correction paper. What 
would you do with it? You d stick It on or paste It on. That s 
what I did with mine. 

Fry: So your "unsavory" quotation probably stood. 

Fritz: You know, I think the term 1 used against the Interior Department 
was "unsavory. " 

Fry: It was "unsavory," yes. I just found it here in my notes. 

Maunder: Was there a spirited exchange of letters in the period in which 

you were editor? Did you get a strong rise out of some of the mem 
bership in reaction to your editorials? 

Fritz: There were not very many but those I got were very rough, from men 
like Ward Shepard and Ed Munns and a few others. Earle Clapp and 
Raymond Marsh, while they didn t write, would tell me about it or 
would tell others, and I got the word that my editorials were too 
strong. They felt that I should have sought more articles of the 
type that indulged in policy discussions, and the relationship of 
forestry to the general economy and stable communities, whereas 


Fritz: I tried to get articles which showed forestry as to actual prac 
tice. I was unsuccessful In doing this because the field forest 
ers were not writers. They were busy on their jobs and didn t 
Indulge very much In writing. I did get one article on the plant 
ing program in the redwoods and several others, but they were not 
very well accepted by the membership in general. When I say "in 
general," 1 mean the old-timers who still ruled the roost. 

I resigned voluntarily and possibly in a huff because of the state 
ment the dean of the college made to me about doing that kind of 
outside work, and also because of the lack of interest of the 
Counci I . 

Maunder: What was the dean s attitude? Was his feeling that you should be 
doing research rather than this work? 

Well, I don t like to say it, but when you re editor of a magazine 
like that, your name is on the front page. You re singled out as 
being with the University of California, and I don t think that 
sat well with the head of the school. I don t think the dean of 
the College of Agriculture cared very much, but he was the man who 
had the final say as to a professor s future. 





Are you suggesting there may have been a 
personal ego involved in the matter? 

little bit of perhaps 

I m afraid so. Also, it interfered with what I was trying to do 
locally in getting forestry moved into the woods. I wasn t doing 
any teaching and consulting work in forestry. My consulting work 
then was almost solely in the general field of wood technology, 
the decay of wood and attack by termites, wood preservation, the 
grading and seasoning of lumber, and the like. 

I think the format of the magazine today is better than it was 
when I had it but, except for the fact that there s a better class 
of writers now and it s easier to get articles, I think the-- Journa I 
has slipped in the sense that it has lost leadership. If one~"wants 
to read something on practical forestry today, he has to read maga- 
z i nes I i ke The Timberman, The Southern Lumberman, and the exce I I ent 
Northeastern Logger. I think there s a lot of dirt forestry in 
those magazines, good stuff. That s the kind of stuff I was try- 
Ing to get for the Journal of Forestry, but if I had gotten it and 
printed it, I think I wouldr^t have lasted more than six months. 

Do you think that these periodicals you ve mentioned maintain high 
professional standards of editorial writing? 

They are excellently done editorially for their particular field. 
They are not professional magazines; they are trade magazines, but 
trade magazines often run technical articles. You will find that 

many foresters, when they can t get their stuff 
where or if they want to be sure that it s read 

pub I i shed el se- 
by the people to 


Fritz: whom it is addressed, will not give it to the Journal of Forestry 
but to a magazine like The Tlmberman. In my own case, I have f re- 
quently given short articles to a trade magazine because I wanted 
them to reach the people who coi ld use them. They would not have 
come across them otherwise. 

CSince this interview was made, the trade magazines have changed 
ownership but "dirt" forestry still appears in them. The Journal 
of Forestry too has changed and has been greatly Improved in con- 
tents and format under Hard in Glascock.H 

The "Unholy Twe I ve Apostles" 








Emanuel, now we want to talk specifically about some matters that 
had to do with your time as an editor and immediately following 
your editorship of the Journal of Forestry in the Thirties. 

You will recall that on June 13th, 1934, twelve members of the 
Society signed a petition which they presented to the president 
and Council, criticizing the present policies and methods of man 
agement of the Journal . And at this particular moment, Franklin 
Reed was editor-in-chief of the Journal , having succeeded you in 
that position only a few months before. 

A year and a half before. 

I have some notes here which show that your editorship ran from 
October, 1930 to December, 1932. 

Right. The petition was introduced a year and a half later and 
another six months later, the matter was discussed at the annual 
convention, January, 1935, two years after my resignation. 

And Franklin Reed had begun then, in January of 1933, and was still 
editor at the particular moment when this petition was presented. 
Now, I think it is also true that Reed continued in a sense the 
policies that you had Initiated as editor, had he not, generally 

To a great extent, yes. You should know that the controversy was 
not so much who was editor but the attempted use of the Journal by 
a clique of socialistic convictions. 

And was it also true 
editor-in-chief, you 
Reed a great deal of 

that even after you resigned your position as 
continued for a long time thereafter to give 
help in getting out the Journal ? 

Well, naturally every editor keeps his editing way ahead of his 
needs. I made my decision to resign very suddenly in the month of 
December. I had two or three issues edited ahead so they would 
require very little more work, and maybe some new stuff would come 


Fritz: in to me direct, and I would edit it for Reed, but that had nothing 
to do with policy. The January, 1933, number was either on the 
press or ready for It. I have forgotten. I must have completed 
the editing for two more number c , so Reed had a running start. 

Maunder: But you were not an "associate editor" in 1934? 

Fritz: No. I was completely out and at my own free will without any pres 
sure. There had been some criticism, but no more than any editor 
receives. There was some "nit-picking" by a few in the lower eche 
lons in the U.S.F.S. offices that an editor has to laugh off, and by 
a few others, e.g., Ward Shepard, who was quite critical, but he was 
not a we 1 1 man . 

Maunder: In this article that we carried in our journal Forest History back 
in the fall of 1962, on "The Evolution of the Society of American 
Foresters as Seen in the Memoirs of H. H. Chapman," there is quite 
a long section that has to do with the editorship of the Jpurnaj_ 
of Forestry. And your resignation from the editorship of the 
Journal is noted here in December of 1932. 

Chapman describes the event as follows: "On June 13, 1934, twelve 
members of the Society petitioned the Council to give consideration 
to needed changes In the editorial policy of the Journal of Forestry. 
The twelve members who signed this petition were George P. Ahern, 
Carlos G. Bates, Earle H. Clapp, L. F. Kneipp, W. C. Lowdermilk, 
Robert Marshall, E. N. Munns, Gifford Pinchot, Edward C. M. Richards, 
F. A. Silcox, William M. Sparhawk, and Raphael Zon. With the ex 
ception of Ahern, Marshall, and Richards, all were members of the 
Forest Service or affiliated with it. Gifford Pinchot and Major 
Ahern had for some time been conducting a vigorous campaign to 
secure national legislation which would give the Forest Service 
authority to put an end to forest devastation* by regulating the 
methods of cutting by all private owners including owners of farm 
wood lots. The Editor of the Journal , Emanuel Fritz, CsicH did not 
sympathize with this policy and the men who signed the petition 
were determined to force the issue." 

"The petition raised three points: I) the separation of the offices 
of the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Secretary, 2) the selection for 
Editor-in-Chief of a man of high literary and technical attainment 
and with strong social convictions, and 3) a certain degree of in 
dependence for the Editor-in-Chief within the limitations of policy 
formulated by the Council." 

Now, a little farther on here, he describes how all of this came to 
a head, following your resignation in December of 1932. But then 
in January of 1935, at the annual meeting of the Society in Wash 
ington, D.C., William Sparhawk had prepared for the petitioners a 
long statement covering the charges against the editor. Now the 
editor at that time was Franklin Reed and In our footnote we note 
this fact, but we also note the fact that their charges were proba 
bly directed as much against you as the former editor, as they were 


Maunder: against Reed as the present editor. And that you were present at 
this annual meeting, according to Chapman, "prepared to defend 
yourself," and that he, Chapman, asked you a favor, namely that 
you say nothing In rejoinder tc these Twelve Apostles in their 

Then he goes on to say that you, however, made rejoinder to the 
Sparhawk statement, and that in so doing, you spilled the beans. 
By launching your defense, you deliberately attacked one of the 
signers of the petition in a personal manner, accusing him of 
Communist sympathies. Now what do you have to say about that? 
What did you actually say in response to Sparhawk? 

Fritz: It sounds like Chapman asked me to make no response at all to Spar- 
hawk. (Are you sure it was Sparhawk?) Actually, if my memory 
doesn t play me false, I was on the program and was invited up to 
the podium where I was to and did speak at length about Journal 
problems. While I was up there, Chapman had left the room to go 
to the White House. 

Maunder: Yes, to present a Sen Men Medal to Franklin Roosevelt. 

Fritz: We went through part of the lunch hour. It must have been the 
vice-president who had the chair and who decided to recess for 
lunch. The topic was to have been resumed after lunch. Don t 
forget that: the Journal matter was to have been resumed after 
lunch. I was speaking more or less "off the cuff" and in general 
terms from notes I made while the spokesman of the Twelve Apostles 
was speaking. My only preparation, as I recall, was notes on a 
card file concerning each of the petition signers. 

I had not reached a discussion of this particular group of men 
when the meeting was recessed for lunch. I was going to let the 
audience know just what each petitioner had done to the Journal . 
Not one of the Twelve gave the Journal any help. One was an as 
sociate editor whose own article had to be heavily edited to make 
it readable. Another was the one 1 mentioned earlier as having 
threatened to end my editorship before it got started. 

Fry: You never did read your notes on them? 

p ritr: I will come to that. Sparhawk had a long statement and my rejoin 
der was equally long. I was not defending myself, 1 was defending 
the policies of the Journa I at the time Reed was editor. 1 want 
to make that clear. 

Maunder: Did you make those policies or did the Council? 

Fritz: No one had suggested anything to me as editor as to policy. As far 
as I know, the editor, until the latter years of Clepper, had full 
sway. But there might have been some suggestions on the part of the 
Council or president that the Journal ought to do this or ought to 
do that. Well, that s all right. They certainly had that privilege 


Fritz: and they were supposed to have and show an interest In the Journal . 
But I was not given any orders as to what the policy shou I d be\ 
All of the Twelve and the many others knew what my views wero lonq 
before Redlngton tendered me the editorship. 

Maunder: Did you have to submit any editorials you wrote for publication to 
anyone before they were published? 

Fritz: I wasn t asked to, and why should an editor have to do that? 

Maunder: I don t say that you should. I just asked if you were ever asked 
to do that. 

Fritz: No. No one knew what the subject was going to be until it appeared 
in the Journal . I wrote several editorials during Zon s editorship 
which he published without revealing the authorship. These were on 
practical subjects such as concentrating on the great expanse of 
conifers in the West and ignoring the hardwoods of the eastern U.S. 
Another one concerned the term "selective logging": just what does 
it mean, the selection of logs after clear-cutting and abandoning 
the rest, or does it mean the felling of trees on a selective basis 
and leaving the others stand? I had seen some of 
logs from clear-cutting. It was very wasteful. 








the selection of 
Once a tree is 


it should be utilized as far as market requirements per 

We re wandering away from the subject again. 

Do you mean that you and Zon really didn t come to a splitting of 
the roads until later? 

I wouldn t say that we ever split, but in my opinion, Zon did some 
things that are not regarded as good scientific spirit. 

This was after you became editor? 

After I quit the editorship. Zon loved his editorship and could not 
adjust to someone else sitting in the editor s chair. Zon was the 
mouthpiece of the Pinchot group. 

Who was the member of the Twelve Apostles you implied was or ac 
cused of being a Communist in the course of this discussion in 
January s annual meeting of 1935? 

First of all, I did not accuse him. 
What did you say? 

I said that one of the Apostles (a signer of the petition) had that 
very morning been reported in the newspapers as having been accused 
of being a Communist the day before in Congress. A big difference, 
isn t it? 








Well, who was this man? 

Robert Marshal I . 

Who called him that In the Congress? 

I don t recall. I think It was In the House of Representatives. 

How did you happen to know that he had been called this in the 
Congress that very morning? 

It was in the newspapers. (It was 
the accusation must have been made 

cuse him of being a Communist, 
me go on from there. 

in the morning newspapers so 

the day before.) I didn t ac- 
. i 

That s what Chapman said. Now let 

At the close 
tion was to 
down to a ta 
that night, 
he was boi I i 
never walked 
hanging down 
said, using 
my orders." 

of the recess for lunch, the discussion on the peti- 
have been resumed. I remember skipping lunch to go 
i lor shop to have my dress suit altered for the banquet 

When I got back, the first man I met was Chapman and 
ng mad. Chapman, you know, was of chunky build and 

erect but leaned forward with those long arms of his 

in front of him. He came at me like a gorilla and 
the mild profanity he used to use, "You didn t follow 

I probably told him that I wasn t under his orders and that I cer 
tainly felt that way about It. I told him what happened. He told 
me L. F. Kneipp came to him and said that I accused Marshall of 
being a Communist. Kneipp and Marshall were very close friends. 

Fry: Did you tell him you d only Implied it? 

Fritz: I must have told him it was in the newspapers in the morning, but 
that didn t make any difference to Chapman. When Chapman had his 
mind made up that that desk there was white instead of dark gray, 
that settled it. 

Maunder: Well, do you suppose that he felt that by making this implication, you 
may have alienated a lot of the members present? There are a lot 
of people who don t like this kind of Impl ication.They don t like 
this assigning labels to people. And Chapman may have felt that by 
this tactic or statement on your part, you gave the enemy in this 
case some ammunition. 

Fritz: Well, you make me recall the comments made personally at the end of 
that talk. I have never before or since been approached by so many 
people who shook my hand and said, "That was a wonderful thing you 
did this morning. You put those fellows in their places." And one 
of those men was Walter Mulford. I was pleasantly stunned by Mul- 
ford s favorable comment. I knew that he did not approve of the 
petition. He was a very meek and reserved man. 


Fry: What else did you say In that speech? We ve just been talking 

about one remark here, but you said you had notes on all of these 

Fritz: Yes. It was my intention to point out to the Society members that 
this group had designs on the Journal , to make it a sort of propa 
ganda organ to promote public ownership and/or federal control of 
all private forest land. They even had designs on the national 

I think most of the audience wanted to hear what I had to say about 
the signers, but when we reconvened after lunch, Kneipp moved that 
we drop the subject and go on to the next item on the program. Chap 
man was in the chair. So I lost an opportunity to show how unfair 
the petitioners were to Editor Reed and how they were endangering 
the independence of the Journal . On that day, Chapman showed his 
color. He was not in favor of the petition, he felt the editor 
should have independence, and he had been all for my beingfon the 
program to protest the petition. My reference to Marshall would 
have pleased him, had not Kneipp worked him over. Chapman made 
life miserable for Reed and soon had him separated from his job 
as secretary and editor. Reed died soon thereafter. He was a very 
sensitive person. 

Maunder: Were there proceedings to this meeting? 
Fritz: There should have been. 

Maunder: Was there a transcript made so that there would be a verbatim 
record of everything that was said? 

Fritz: It would be a wonderful thing to have. 

Maunder: Would you know if there was such? 

Fritz: I don t remember that anything was published. 

Fry: Wouldn t Reed have seen that this would have been made? There are 
proceedings of the annual meetings during these years in here. 

Fritz: All this took place more than thirty years ago before we had tape 

recorders and before the S.A.F. could afford to hire a court reporter. 

Please don t think I was proud of the stand I felt I had to take. 
When I adopted forestry as a profession I had one single purpose 
to put forestry in the woods. I had heard or seen too much of 
condemnation of lumbermen destroying the forest, too much mission 
ary zeal, too much worship of Pinchot. At the same time, there was 
a growing number of young foresters going into private employ who 
had the same idea I had. These young fellows had to submit to the 
ridicule and sometimes the suspicions of their counterparts in pub 
lic employ. They had to overcome opposition from the woods workers 


Fritz: and had to win the confidence of their bosses. If there have been 
any heroes In American forestry, It was this bunch of foresters on 
Industrial payrolls. It took courage to go into private employ in 
those days. 

Fry: About that petition I wonder about the first point. It says that 

the Twelve Apostles suggest that the editor (this future editor that 
they want) not be subject to dictation by the Executive Council in 
editorial policy, and yet you said that you hadn t been subject to 
dictation by Executive Council. Why did they put that In their 

Fritz: They were probably thinking of the future. It was already plain 
that the Pinchot group was losing control of the S.A.F. 

Fry: Well, do you think that they were really serious in wanting to 
start a new magazine? 

Fritz: There were rumors. If there was any such thought they could con 
trol the magazine, I am sure that it would have become a propaganda 

Fry: In other words, they were criticizing you for not having enough of 
the New Deal spirit In yours. 

Fritz: Well, that s about right. 

Fry: They said it was lacking in the "spirit of social leadership," 
while the problems "were not discussed in the spirit of the New 
Deal" over the last few years. 

Fritz: That is certainly true. The S.A.F. is not a welfare association. 
It is a society of professional foresters. The social welfare 
game should not be the main business of foresters. 

Fry: And so you think their new magazine would probably have been spe 
cifically a magazine to back up their efforts to get federal con 
trol of forest management? 

Fritz: You have no idea how close this country was to a dictatorship and 
a socialistic form of government, the forerunner of a strong bur 
eaucracy topped by a dictator. In 1940 or 39, Earle Clapp wrote 
to all the regional foresters and all the experiment station heads, 
to do their utmost to influence the forestry schools to adopt pro 
grams that the Forest Service was promoting. Now that was really 
something! You will find a copy in my files. 

Fry: This letter went to whom? 

Fritz: It went to all the regional foresters and to all the heads of the 
experiment stations to exercise their influence on the schools to 
make their policies those of the Forest Service. Now that was 












Fry : 


really trying to control education, wasn t it? And I know that 
here in this school, when we were in Glarinlnl Hall, the head of 
the experiment station did actually try to force his Influence on 

On what issues? 

Influencing the faculty to follow the tenets of the U.S.F.S. and 
the support of the U.S.F.S. efforts to get control of private for 
est land management. 

Regulations specifically? 


Did this actually trickle down into classrooms or do you know? 

Well, it certainly would have if the head of the school should have 
gotten the faculty to follow the leadership of the U.S.F.S. Mulford 
would not have stood for it. Our school, to a man, opposed the 
kind of federal regulation Pinchot and Clapp wanted. 

Was Pinchot the figure behind this move to get forestry regulations? 

He was more than a figurehead; Clapp, as acting Chief Forester, fol 
lowed the Pinchot line. 

From a letter in your files that Chapman passed along to you, I get 
the idea that Pinchot was willing to put up money to get this new 
magazine started. Do you remember anything about that? 

No, I don t remember that. I wouldn t be surprised though, because 
at one time and I think it was in the Forties or early Fifties 
Mrs. Pinchot, after G. P. di.ed, actually started a counter organi 
zation . 

What was that? 

What did they cal I 
I ike that. 

it American Conservation Association, something 

Oh yes. Well, they still have one called that. 

Some of the Twelve Apostles and some of their sycophants were in 
volved in that. 

Emanuel, I have been studying Volume Thirty-three of the Journal 
of Forestry for 1935, in which the "Proceedings" of the annual 
meeting of that year are published. These "Proceedings" cover 
January 28, 29, and 30, and they seem to be quite complete with a 
rather notable exception of the morning session of January 29, which 
is the session we ve been talking about in which this storm blew up 
between you and others and that Is expunged from the record here. 


Fritz: I m sorry to be reminded of that. I had completely forgotten 
about it. 

Maunder: That part was not published. N^w, every other session, morning, 
afternoon, and evening, of every other day is represented in here 
by some comment and reports of one kind or another and papers, but 
the morning session, January 29, does not appear here. 

Fritz: Who was editor then, Smith? 

Maunder: I believe so because at the very beginning is a little editorial 
by Henry S. Graves, announcing Herbert A. Smith s appointment as 
editor of the Journal . 

Fritz: Well, Smith was all that I described him as being, a real gentle 
man and a scholar. He was also imbued with the spirit of Pinchot. 
His editorials were more like essays. He was a very good writer. 
One could not call his editorials propaganda. 

Fry: So he was a New Deal type. 

Maunder: Would you say that he withheld this part of the debate? 

Fritz: I doubt it. It is very likely that he never got it. Smith was a 
very honest man. 

Maunder: Why? He s got everything else here. 

Fritz: Who was the business manager or the managing editor? 

Maunder: Franklin W. Reed. 

Fritz: Well, Reed was an employee. If anyone took notes, it is likely 
that he was ordered not to give them to the editor. But I doubt 
the performance was recorded. 

Maunder: Weren t you aware of this item being missing from the Journa I ? 
Fritz: That I don t remember. In this case, I probably did. 

Maunder: Didn t you ever challenge the editor with why he didn t cover this 
i n the Journal ? 

Fritz: No. No, I don t recall ever challenging him, and I don t recall 
ever noticing that was missing. I heard it, and that was all I 
was interested in. 

Fry: Well, do you think Chapman would have asked him to take it out? 
Fritz: I don t know. 

Maunder: Did this discussion on the morning of the twenty-ninth become a 
real shouting match? 


Fritz: ! don t recall any interruptions, 

The Twelve Apostles were badly 

Maunder: I m trying to understand why it s not in the "Proceedings," and It 








seems to me that if it had descended to that level 
been kept out for purely good professional reasons. 

it might have 

I recall no interruptions. The afternoon session might have been 
different, if Kneipp had not moved to drop the subject. 

But then Chapman took over after lunch. 

On an occasion like that, I might have gotten wrought up, but not 
on that one. Awaiting my turn while sitting in the audience, I got 
myself in as calm a mood as possible. Usually I am very tense on 
the platform. Sparhawk was very serious. I knew 1 had to be calm. 
In fact, this whole business was a comedy and I tried to treat it 
as such. I spoke with no rancor or vehemence. This part I remember 
very well. I think it hurt the petitioners cause. 

Sparhawk s statement is also stricken from the record here. 
That s not in here either? 

That s something that I d like to look into why It was cut out. 
Or have I forgotten that I noted its absence. Perhaps there s some 
thing in my file on that. If the S.A.F. file for that performance 
has been saved, I hope I can see it just to read the whole story 
again. I really enjoyed the scrap. The motivation and action of 
the Twelve was silly and childish. A sense of humor would have 
helped them. But they left Sparhawk holding the bag; his compan 
ions did not rise to help him. Kneipp s motion to drop the sub 
ject was fortunate. 

Perhaps we should be glad a full report of the morning s proceed 
ings were withheld from the Journal . It wasn t pretty. 1 never 
could understand why some of the signers put their names on the 
petition. The petition was probably the work of only four or five. 
The others probably were talked into signing. 

What were all the undercurrents that seemed to come to a head here 
in 1934? 

I think the January, 1935, convention of the S.A.F. in Washington 
was a turning point in the battle for federal regulation. The 
National Recovery Act had been passed and its Article X, applying 
to logging, was put to work. The general economy was improving. 
(Logging was almost at a complete standstill until about 1934.) 
Proponents of federal regulation were being beaten down by those 
who favored cooperation. 

This whole matter as we talk about it here reminds me of the U.S.F.S. 
man who said he would see me removed from the editorship before my 




I announced to him. 
me on the Journal 








third month if I followed the editorial policy 

We have already discussed this when you queried 


Who was this? Earle Clapp? 

No, I won t mention his name. He was a good fellow but he was over- 
enthusiastic, and sometimes overzealous. However, his name was on 
that list of Twelve Apostles. So you see the hierarchy in Washing 
ton wanted that Journal as its own particular mouthpiece. 

Had it been that way under Raphael Zon s editorship? 

To a large extent, yes. Zon was one of the petitioners in 1934. 

Raphael Zon had been, to all intents and purposes, editor-in-chief 
of that publication for roughly twenty-three years because even 
while Fernow was the editor, Zon was really doing most of the work, 
was he not? At least, that is the interpretation that is given by 
Franklin Reed here in his "History of the Journal of Forestry." 
On page 787, in this October, 1934, issue, he summarizes the issue 
of the Journal by citing the various editors-in-chief. And he says: 
"To all practical intents, Zon was editor-in-chief for the Society 
for twenty-three years. He served on the editorial board of the 
proceedings from its inception. ..." That was back in about 1903 
or 1904, I be I ieve. 

1902, probably. The Journal started as "Proceedings" in that year. 

"During the same period, he was Fernow s right hand assistant on 
the quarterly. During the five years that Fernow was editor-in- 

Zon s resignation 

Zon was managing editor, 
initiative for a combination of reasons, one of 

chief of the Journal 
was at his own 

them being that his official duties no longer left him this neces 
sary spare time." And then Dana took over in 1928. Well, the point 
I would like to raise here is this: having had such a long span as 
the editor of the Journal and of its predecessor publications . . . 

Not editor but influence you mean. 

Right. But managing editor in many cases is the man who is really 
cutting most of the editorial pattern. And I would imagine that 
over this long period of time, Zon must have had quite a proprie 
tary feeling about the Journal . 

He did that. There s no question about it. But I would disagree 
that the managing editor has more power over what goes in the book 
than the editor in this particular case. It might be in a commer 
cial magazine where you depend on advertising. But you take for 
example, Dana. Dana was a very well-educated man, a man of superior 
intellect and standard of ethics, a man of good common sense and 
independence. And although he s never said this to me, I sensed, 
when I took over the editorship, that the people in Washington 














hoped to get control of the magazine. They couldn t get control 
of it while Dana was In charge of It. 

These were the federal forester.., you re talking about? 
Yes. Most of them were federal foresters. 

You three, Zon, Dana, and then you, took on the magazine s editor 
ship, and then all of you had to give it up for essentially the 
same reason, that it just required more time than you could reason 
ably afford to give it? 

It was a very thankless job for any volunteer editor and for me it 
was very costly. I ll just give an example of the time involved. 
I had a comparatively light teaching schedule, but I had consider 
able other work to do also. Some of the administrative work at the 
school was farmed out among the faculty members, and I was also 
interested in this controversy over the control of lumbering by 
the federal government. 

My wife and I used to attend plays, concerts and lectures in Wheeler 
Hall or somewhere else around the Bay Region. She wanted to arrive 
before the crowd came when it would be hard to find a seat (when 
they re not reserved), and she Insisted on being there at least a 
half an hour early. So to occupy that half hour sometimes it went 
to an hour I took along two or three articles and would edit one 
or more before curtain time. 

You mean you just used every available moment. 
I had to but I enjoyed it. 

When did that so-called clique within the profession go into eclipse 
as far as its power was concerned? 

You ve got to put several things together there. I think Silcox 
was the Chief Forester and he was followed by Lyle Watts. I knew 
Silcox when he was regional forester in Missoula, Montana. He quit 
the Forest Service for a number of years and was sort of a union 
boss of the typographers in New York City. He had strong social 
istic tendencies. Nevertheless, I asked him one day, "What is the 
matter with the Forest Service back there in Washington? It isn t 
like it was when you and I were in Missoula." And he said, "No, it 
isn t. I m terribly concerned over the self-righteousness of the 
Forest Service." And in just those two words he expressed my own 

Who first called the petitioners the Twelve Apostles? 

I don t know where it arose. 

Was it well bandied around? Was this common talk? 


Fritz: Yes. 

Maunder: Was It ever published in the Journal In this way? Were thoy called 
this publicly In the Journal ? 

Fritz: Could be. If I had been editor at the time, I certainly would have 
used it. 

Maunder: Well, how long did this group hold sway? When did its power reach 
its apex and when did it start to go into decline? 

Fritz: In my opinion, the January, 1935, confrontation was the beginning 
of its eclipse. But its end came shortly after World War II. 
There had been some deaths, the country s economy began to boom, 
the Forest Service was on the verge of a boom itself in timber sales 
and therefore had public relations problems of its own. A tire-con 
suming effort toward a redwood national forest was made at the be 
hest of Congresswoman Helen Gahagan Douglas. The Tree Farm program 
was expanding rapidly, and other events changed the entire forest 

The forestry profession has grown out of its sophomoric period. 
The men in responsible forest jobs, private and public, are more 
objective, better trained, and have had more field experience. Most 
important, the forestry schools are far better. Their professors 
"have better backgrounds in science and economics, and this has in 
creased their independence. What has gone before is now history. 
I was glad to have been a pa.rt of the profession In its "teen" 
years, even though my part was small. 

Maunder: When you were editor, were you seeking to build a bridge of under 
standing between the two groups? 

Fritz: As the editor, yes. Let me make something clear at this point. 

The difference between the two groups was really a clash of phi 
losophies. The Pinchot-Forest Service group was determined to get 
control of all private lumbering through Congressional legislation. 
The other group felt the cooperative approach was more democratic. 
In the U.S. there always have been some people who wanted all au 
thority centered in Washington and some others who were for the 
private enterprise system. Foresters in private employ resented 
a federal bureau ordering their activities. Each side was still 
learning the timber management job. Of the two, the private for 
ester had the best opportunity to learn the job because he had to 
prove himself in the accounting room as well as in the woods. The 
editor of the Journa I was expected by the one to beat the drums of 
doom if the government isn t given the authority to regulate all 
forest practices, while the other side expected him to publish 
stuff of practical use to the manager. 

I was interested in applying forestry in the woods. A common ex 
pression I ve used a hundred times was, "Take forestry out of the 
swivel chair and put it into the woods where it belongs." And that 






is what I was trying to do in the Journal . When you look over 
the list of men who formed those Twelve Apostles, you ll find 
that some of them never had a forest to manage. 

When you were editor, you not only solicited articles, but you 
critically read them, made suggestions for improvement to the 
authors, and carried them all the way through the editorial pro 
cess, including copyreading and proofreading all this by long 
distance, I presume, with the authors and the publisher, by mail. 

You re quite right. I also wrote the leaders, a brief summary at 
the head of each article. I had a card index, which was my guide 
as to the authors and the titles. The cards kept a record of wfterr 
an article was received, what was done with it, and so on. In- 
cidentally, that card index came in very handy to me one time. 
Zon was a peculiar type of man. He had a lot of excellent quali 
ties and he was a very able man, but he was very one-sided and 
susp icious. 

After he gave up the 
the magazine was goi 
I Ike Zon. He wrote 
refusing to pub I Ish 
He said that I dldn 1 
my card index and I 
celved the article, 
it, and when it was 
I ish an article with 

Journal of Forestry editorship, he felt that 
ng to the dogs, that no one could do a job 
me a very nasty letter once, accusing me of 
an article written by one of his own staff, 
t even acknowledge it. I immediately went to 
found the whole record there the day I re- 
the day it was acknowledged, what was done with 
to be published. It was not possible to pub- 
in thirty days after its receipt. 

Was there much plagiarism on the part of the Washington office? 

There was some. I first learned about it while I was stationed in 
Arizona at the Experiment Station near Flagstaff. There would be 
long letters and long distance telephone calls from Washington. 
Gus Pearson was the head man at the Station. He was a very honest 
man, very consciencious and very sensitive. Sometimes when the 
telephone conversation was ended, he would walk around the room, 
evidently distraught or distressed. He then would unburden to me 
(he and I had become very good friends), "What do you think so-and- 
so said to me?" or "What do you think so-and-so is doing?" Gener 
ally it concerned plagiarism or a dictatorial attitude at the other 
end of the I ine. 

Maunder: Nevertheless, you were elected a Fellow of the Society of American 

Fritz: Yes, I was made a Fellow in 1951. I knew my name was up because 

it was published along with the names of other candidates. I gave 

it little thought because I felt I d never make the grade. 

Maunder: Weren t you denied election as a Fellow for quite a long time be 
cause of this row? 







It s possible, but I don t recall having been a candidate earlier. 
At least, I was not among earlier lists of candidates. 

How many blackballs knock out a man as a Fellow? 

Election needs only a majority among those Fellows who actually 
vote. Those who vote on Fellow candidates are the existing Fellows 
themselves and, I believe, the officers and Council members. 

I was astonished when I was elected. I told an S.A.F. official of 
my surprise and he volunteered this, "Not only that, but you were 
near the top." There was satisfaction in that. 

Have you found the letter about the Apostles? 

Thanks. By the way, Chapman was very wrong in that interview you 
had when he said I was editor at this time. That controversy was 
during Reed s editorship. Reed badly needed a job. It was in the 
depression years. He was a nice friendly person, and he had the 
same general ideas about the private enterprise system that I had, 
that is, anti-socialism. Chapman made his life miserable. 


In some respects, Chapman was right because Frank 
take things easy. I tried to help him out. It s 
that somebody in the audience recommended that we 
ject and go to something else, because I 
foolishly I fired my small ammunition in 
with the big stuff still in its racks. 

Reed liked to 

a darn good thing 

pass up 

this sub 

was loaded for bear, but 
the morning and landed 

Bob Marshall was one of the Twelve? 

"Yes. He took no part in the January, 1935, S.A.F. meeting, as I 
remember it, but at another meeting he was very much in evidence. 
At the time he was forester for the Indian Forest Service but took 
in a wider territory on his own. He was programmed to speak, I 
believe, on the operation of the N.R.A. I was chairman of that 
session, and I let him go full blast until he ran down. 

In some way, I had learned that on his western tour of Indian for 
ests, he visited also other areas in a search for violations of 
Article X of the N.R.A. and for proof of the need for federal regu 
lation. He included the redwood region. A California Forest Ex 
periment Station man was guiding him, and this chap was not noted 
for fairness. He took Marshall to a large logging operation and 
pointed out the lack of seed trees required by Article X. 

Marshall reported this presumed violation to his cohorts in Wash 
ington. What actually happened was this: the U.S.F.S. guide did 
not tell Marshall that the area he examined had been felled several 


Fritz: years before Article X s birth. The Depression had idled the op 
eration and the logs had to be left. So Marshall came to the meet 
ing prepared to prove that Article X is not enough. 

After Marshall finished his accusal ons against the Industry, I 
took the podium as a member, rather, than as chairman, and explained 
that Marshall had been deceived by his Forest Service guide and that 

in his eagerness to find a culprit he did not analyze the situation. 

I mention this only to show how avid for muck some of the enemies 
of private enterprise had become. 

Fry: Chapman was president of the S.A.F. when this happened, and I think 
he had just run for re-election. Hadn t you run too, at that same 

Fritz: Yes. I didn t want the job. Nobody could win against Chapman. The 
Constitution required, I think, four, five, or six candidates, and 
they couldn t get anybody to run against Chapman, which was like 
going against Franklin Roosevelt in the first term. Several of us 
had to volunteer the use of our names but we knew very well that we 
didn t have a chance. 

I was asked several times in later years to run for president, but I 
declined. Such a job Is not for me. 1 think I would have won. I 
had many followers in the federal bureaus as well as outside. 

Fry: Did Chapman run by assuring everyone that he was not going to let 
the government foresters gain control of the Society? I read some 
reference to that in your papers. 

Fritz: It could be. He felt that way about It. He was hot and cold on 

things like that. But I am sure Chapman was opposed to the machina 
tions of the Twelve Apostles. 

Fry: Well, then after this petition was presented, you wrote a rebuttal 
which, I guess, appeared in the Journal , but it was edited, 1 be 
lieve, in the process by Granger. 

Fritz: Edited by Granger? 

Fry: Your rebuttal was. Granger was, I guess, in some position to go 
over it at this point. 

Fritz: I don t recall that Granger ever touched anything that 1 wrote. 

Fry: He and Reed suggested that you shorten it. 

Fritz: Well, maybe shorten it. 

Maunder: There is no editorial Judgment more critical, Emanuel, than that! 

Fritz: I have a tendency to be too wordy. So I ve always welcomed someone 
willing to read my stuff critically and let me know candidly what 


Fritz: he thinks of it, so I could study It out more. But, frankly, I 
don t remember preparing a rebuttal. 

Maunder: When you quit, this thrust the responsibility Into their laps and 

they called upon Franklin Reed to on the responsibility, right? 

Fritz: It was the logical thing to do. He was the executive secretary. 

Maunder: And they agreed that within six months, by May of 1934, they were 
going to solve the problem and find an editor to take on the job? 

Fritz: Yes, that s correct. 

Maunder: Then when May, 1934, came around, they had not made the decision. 
They had not yet found the permanent man. 

Fritz: Do you mind if I go upstairs and get the volumes of the Journal? 
Fry: No. 

CTake off for a few minutes. 3 

Fritz: I brought these down by volume. After Reed was editor a while, 
Herbert Smith was made the editor. 

Maunder: When was that? 
Fritz: 34, I think. 

Maunder: Now wasn t that a concession to the Twelve Apostles? Wasn t Her 
bert Smith more a representative of their position than of the 

Fritz: Herbert Smith was one of the few scholars. 

Maunder: He had his Ph.D. 

Fritz: Did he? I didn t know that. 

Maunder: Yes. 

Fritz: He was a brilliant man, a beautiful writer, and his editorials were 
really excellent but harmless essays. He declined an honorarium for 
serving as editor but he must have worked diligently. He had better 
success than I had in getting the associate editors to help in the 
editing, and not only editing but returning the edited manuscripts 

Reed s Dismissal 


About Reed s dismissal as executive secretary, you just mentioned 


Fry: (before I got the tape recorder turned on today) that this was a 
very sensitive thing when it came up. 

Fritz: This was a very distasteful thl ri g to me, to have to side with 

Chapman In finding a successor to Reed. I had a great liking for 
Reed. He had a lot of ability. He was an excellent writer, and 
he and I shared the same views as to private enterprise versus 
federal regulation and domination. 

He had some difficulties, and some of them were due to having an 
tagonized Chapman because of his stand for cooperation as against 
federal domination. Chapman himself was for private enterprise 
generally. But Reed was not inclined to change his views because 
of Chapman s views. 

Fry: Just where did their views conflict then? 

Fritz: On Important details, especially where the Forest Service policy 
was concerned. 

Fry: This doesn t come out in the records, because in the records Chap 
man s reasons are given largely as Reed s operational inadequacies 
In running S.A.F. He mentioned that Reed was incompetent, and he 
mentions several things here that Reed should have done and failed 
to do and that sort of thing. But you feel that there was some 
thing underlying this? 

Fritz: There was more to it In the background. Reed came to the West on 
several occasions to weep on my shoulder. Apparently, Chapman, 
who was hypercritical, rubbed him the wrong way, and Reed rubbed 
Chapman the wrong way. We needed a man of somewhat different type 
than Reed. And we found a man in Henry Clepper. 

Fry: Well, are you saying that you first found Henry Clepper, and then 
wondered how you could go about getting rid of Reed? 

Fritz: Not at all . 

Fry: When did this movement start to replace Reed? 

Fritz: Chapman had a very clever way of presenting his side of a case con 
vincingly. It was rare that Council members or anyone else crossed 
swords with him. He was actually vindictive and could cause a man 
a lot of professional trouble. (I knew personally because he gave 
me a hard time too.) Chapman had to have a whipping boy, one over 
his knee and one In reserve. 

Fry: So this was in 1936 when this happened. 
Fritz: Somewhere around there. 

Fry: And I believe Chapman had been in two years at that point as presi 
dent of S.A.F. 


Fritz: I think Chapman had two terms as president. 

Fry: So I was wondering, since Chapman was also in in 1934, if this 

was in any way a throwback to that Zon petition that we were talk 
ing about. 

Fritz: The Zon petition had its aftermath. It left a lot of wounds. 
Fry: How did that affect Reed s standing with the Society? 
Fritz: Compounded his troubles. 

Fry: In other words, Reed did carry some of the blame for the dissatis 
faction there? Is that what you mean? 

Fritz: Well, I wouldn t put it quite like that, but his gears did not 
mesh with Chapman s. In thought and action, Reed, as its paid 
secretary, was a concerned member of the S.A.F. 

Fry: This Zon petition was largely Forest Service people. And they 
were antagonistic toward Reed also, is that what you mean? 

Fritz: Less antagonistic to Reed as a person than for his opposition to 
public regulation. Chapman was consistently Inconsistent. He 
would defend one today and breathe fire upon him the next day. 

Fry: How did the Twelve Apostles feel toward Reed? 

Fritz: They felt the same way toward him as they did toward me. We were 
not on the same wave length. 

Fry; Which was that they would rather have somebody else as executive 

Fritz: They wanted someone who would follow the Forest Service line, some 
one they could influence or control. 

Fry: This began officially in your records on January 28, 1936. You 
were a member of the Council, and the Council voted to dismiss 
Reed at their Atlanta meeting. I think you were contacted by mail 
about this. You didn t go to their meeting apparently. And Chap 
man s memo on that meeting says: 

"This action is to be confidential with the Council 
and not to be announced In any way. Mr. Reed s status 
with the Society and the public is that no action has 
been taken and that his services are continued." 

So that in other words, Reed was to be retained for a year, although 
he had been officially dismissed by the Council. Now why did the 
Council decide to time it this way? The Information did leak out, 
and it presented a lot of problems for everybody. 












I have completely forgotten that Chapman had made that statement. 
Is it In here? 

Yes, if you want to read it that second paragraph. 

Well, as I read it, I would say that was characteristic of Chapman, 
and looking back, and just reading It, I would say it was self- 
protection. Chapman should have known It couldn t be kept secret. 
Chapman himself couldn t keep a secret. 

In other words, Reed learned of his dismissal before the Council 
had even notified him. 

He even learned of it the night before the Council voted, and then 
when he returned to Washington, he said that news of it had leaked 
to Washington, D.C. , and then he went up to Yale and found people 
there who knew of it. So Reed actually knew of it from the first 
but he was not notified of it until later and that comes out in 
the correspondence here. And then finally the thing came up be 
fore the entire S.A.F. for a vote. 

These are the formal charges against Reed. "He has made unfavor 
able appearances before sections, schools and public meetings." 

This is statement number four on Franklin Reed. 

This is quoting from the formal charges that were made against him. 

This is different than the other. 

That s right. 

"He has made unfavorable appearances before sections 
is true, unfortunately. Reed was inclined to ramble. 


Here is number two: "The lack of initiative and good judgment in 
undertaking investigations in handling situations which require 
tact." Well, I don t know about that. 

You can t think of any examples In which that was the case? 

He had to be pushed. 

Who was doing most of the pushing? 

Chapman, who was president. Let me read further. Number three: 
"Failure to properly systematize and supervise the business and 
details of the office and he delegated duties without giving ade 
quate supervision." There was some truth in that. I don t think 
Reed was an administrator. He was miscast for the job. It was 
very unfortunate for him because he would have been a good man 
somewhere else, and it was very unfortunate for Reed that Chapman 


Fritz: was so abrupt regarding his duties, not to try to develop him and 
Instead Just give him hell all the time. 

Fry: Yes, well, this probably made R^ad even worse. 

Fritz: Yes indeed. It made him a physical wreck. He died shortly after 
he was dl smi ssed. 

Maunder: He did? 

Fritz: I agree with others that his death was hastened by Chapman s 

Maunder: And his death was attributed to what? 

Fritz: The immediate cause? 

Maunder: Yes. 

Fritz: I don t recall. I think it was a stroke. 

Fry: And his wife was already in some kind of a sanitarium. 

Fritz: Yes, and I have a hazy recollection that he lost some functions. 

Maunder: Well, that would usually go with a stroke. 
Go on with the charges. 

Fritz: There were four. Number four: "Inability to harmonize his personal 
opinions with his position as executive secretary in relation to 
the Council." Well, that could have been worded a little differ 
ently if it had been worded by someone else: "Inability to harmon 
ize his personal opinions with his position as executive secretary 
and with the president." Because the president was forcing his views 
on the Council. And for a while I must admit that I took some awful 
junk from Chapman and voted with him because you have to make some 
allowances for a man when he s trying to do some good. 

Number five: "Evident inability to exert sufficient sustained effort 
to meet the greater growing requirements of an expanding organiza 
tion." Well, I think my recollection Is clear on all of those ex 
cept one of them. He was not a self-starter. 

Fry: So that actually it appears that it was time for the Society to 
have a new man In? 

Fritz: Yes, I would say that that s correct. Under a different president, 
Reed could have become a good S.A.F. secretary. 

Fry: It Is interesting that also in your files is a letter from Butler, 
which was dated even a month before the action of the Council. 


Fritz: Now, I have just read that third paragraph that you have shown me. 
Some of that comes back, and I am surprised that others besides 
myself recognized that the business manager, Miss Warren, was a 
domineering personality. And o* course, we all knew that Chapman 
was very aggressive and domineering. 

Only this morning, I opened a file and came across several things 
which I will turn over to you for the file marked Chapman. This 
is to be turned over to the Bancroft Library. It shows how domi 
neering and aggressive Chapman himself was, and how arrogant and 
vindictive he could be if anyone crossed him. I hate to say that 
of Chapman because Chapman did a great deal for forestry and for the 
Society. Yet certainly he kept things stirred up continuously. 

Fry: We might as well read into the record this list of Council members 
who voted on the dismissal. Dana, Spring, Besley, Collingwood, 
Rhoades, Winkenwerder, and Chapman were present. And then 
Korstian and Granger, who were just past Council members. And 
absent but voting: Rutledge, Kotok, yourself, and Shepard. 

Fritz: Was that unanimous? 

Fry: I don t know how the vote went. 

Fritz: I believe and I hope you can check It from my papers that I 
voted for Reed s dismissal. 

Fry: Yes, you did. 

Fritz: And whether I made any comment on it or not, I don t remember. 

Fry: Yes, you did. 

Fritz: It was in a letter. 

Fry: You have several letters there that go back and forth as this be 
came a Society issue, pointing out how Reed made it difficult for 
you when you were editing the Journal , two or three years previous. 

Fritz: Reed made it difficult for me? 

Fry: For you when you were editing the Journal because of what would be 
done in the Washington Office. You were sitting here in California 
editing the Journa I . 

Fritz: I don t recall that Reed made anything difficult for me. I might 
have forgotten it. 

Fry: But at any rate, I assume that you did vote with the Council on 
dismissing Reed at this time. Now, later on when they got votes 
from the entire membership on It, that was when you abstained. 

Fritz: Well, it was very rough on Reed because he had some health difficulty, 


Fritz: I m reminded of that by reading paragraph three, that his wife 
was quite ill. The man was really despondent. With Chapman as 
president, Reed could not have been given the S.A.F. secretaryship 
at a worse time. Previously, h~ had lost his Job because of the 

Fry: This was his job with the National Lumber Manufacturing Association? 

Fritz: I don t remember what it was. I personally liked the man. We 

used to have some private correspondence, and my letters are proba 
bly in the files. But I don t recall that he made things difficult 
for me as editor. 

c ry: Miss Warren was the business manager and Reed was the executive 
secretary while you were editor. 

Fritz: Miss Warren gave me a bad time in the first three months of my 

editorship. I had it out with her early and then we got on very 
well. She had a lot of drive and was very interested in her job 
in a forestry organization. I have already told you about the 
poor paper she bought for the November and December, 1930, numbers. 

Fry: Well, on this Reed case, the information leaked out and apparently 
Reed says, In a letter, that Besley showed him the dismissal state 
ment on January 27, which was the day before the meeting in Atlanta 
at which he was dismissed. And so I thought perhaps you knew some 
thing about the relationship here on this list of Council members. 
There might be some trying to help Reed who were privy to the 
Council s actions, like Besley and maybe other friends. Do you 
know anybody like that? 

Fritz: Let me go down the list. Dana was, and still is, a very independ 
ent person. He makes up his own mind and is not influenced by 
gossip without checking. I don t know what Dana s reaction was to 
Reed, but whatever he did I think was done conscientiously and very 
fairly. Spring, the same way. Besley, the same way. Collingwood, 
the same way. Rhoades, I don t know. Winkenwerder, yes or no. H. 
H. Chapman certainly was against Reed. Korstian, I don t know. 
Granger would always side with Chapman. Rut I edge, I don t know. 
Kotok would side with Chapman s view and so would Shepard, and, as 
you say, I also was with Chapman (probably with my fingers crossed). 

We badly needed an executive secretary who first of all would not 
inject his own views and himself too much because he was a hired 
man. Direction was up to the president and Council members. Of 
course, Reed was a member himself. He could act as a member but 
he also would have to be circumspect knowing that he was also a 
paid employee. 

Fry: But It doesn t sound as if it was a question of paying him. It 

appears that he was thought to be Incompetent by a number of people. 
Chapman points out that Reed s administration was untidy regarding 


Fry: stenographic services, he felt that Reed had not gone about filing 
the Forest School report which had Just been put out by the S.A.F., 
and the revision of the Constitution had been handled badly, and 
that Reed at one point was suppr^ed to have provided for an unsigned 
ballot at the annual meeting and he didn t he had a place there 
for everybody to sign his name on the ballot. I was wondering if 
you knew of any of these instances. 

Fritz: You didn t know Chapman of course, and very few of the present 

generation of foresters knew him. He was very much of a martinet. 
Even though he didn t have any authority over a person, he didn t 
ask him to do a thing, he told him. He expected obedience like 
unto a military command. And a military command is in two parts, 
as you know. One is the alert cat! and then the order for action. 

I doubt very much if Chapman made inquiries at all as to what may 
have delayed Reed in acting quickly on the report that you men 
tioned (which I don t remember at all). Maybe it was delayed. It 
must have been because Chapman expected quick work"! Hteed needed 
the empathy of his superior, not his harassment. Under Chapman, 
Reed hardly knew what to expect next. 

Fry: This was apropos of the action of a countermove led by these men 

here: Ayers, Baker, Boyce, Brown, R. S. Kellogg, Recknagie, Titus, 
Ziegler and Damtoft. And these nine members had sent him a letter 
on June 4, saying that Chapman was constantly usurping the duties 
of the executive secretary. And in answer to this, Chapman points 
out these specific complaints he had against Reed. And all this 
time, Reed was staying in the chair of executive secretary. 

Fritz: Unfortunately for Reed, Chapman had a way of magnifying any short 
comings of a person. I know that because that s the way he was 
w i th me . 

Fry: You felt that Chapman magnified yours too. Well, apparently he had 
no trouble getting a vote from the Council on this, and also he 
apparently assumed that everybody would keep it quiet for a year 
while Reed found another job. In fact, he had wanted Reed to 
quietly resign. 

Fritz: I wish I could see that correspondence on Reed. 

Fry: Would you like for me to get it? I could just run upstairs and 
get this from your files. 

Fritz: Please do that. 

CTape off a few minutes.H 

Here is an editorial on the wilderness, written by Editor Herbert 
Smith. He was a magnificent writer and a good thinker. He was not 
a forester. He had a lovable personality and was quite a gen 
tleman; he had been a teacher of English, specialized in English 


Fritz: in college. His essays written as editorials are really wonder 
fully well done and well thought out. And the one on the wlldei 
ness, he gave it the title, "A Cult for the Wilderness." That was 
published in the December, 1935 Journal of Forestry . I must read 
it again because it ties in with wha h we ve gone through with the 
wilderness extremists in the past few years. 

Fry: Here is the letter that you wrote to H. H. Chapman on January 15, 
1936, in which you give him in advance your vote to discharge Reed 
in case the Council took any action on it later that month. 

Fritz: This was what I was referring to In my discussion with you. 

Fry: "Reed has no conception whatever of the duties of a secretary nor 
of his limitations nor the implications of the job." 

Fritz: Now this is something that I think is important. Miss Warren was 
domineering and tried to run Reed as well as the Society, and also 
tried to run the editor. "Too much procrastination," I see here in 
this letter of January 15, 1936, from me to Chapman. Reed was in 
deed a procrastinator. And then I say: "Yet, Reed is not fully 
to blame. We must be fair to him. We have let the Reed-Warren 
situation develop for five years. 

"I made a broad hint in my letters to Granger particularly in my 
report on the future of the Journal of a situation but it was 
missed. Yet, Reed is very ab le. Re writes very well and intel 
ligently and I have no reason to believe him to be other than com 
pletely honest. He is sensitive and this has made it hard for both 
of you. It is a tough combination: an aggressive president, a 
lead-footed executive secretary, and a domineering business man 

I had forgotten that I had written that way, and I believe I was 
right at the time. As I told you earlier, Reed had some personal 
qualities which I admired and liked very much. I wish I could have 
saved him. 

Fry: Yes, apparently he was a very personable man, amiable. 
Fritz: Yes, he was a good companion. This was in 1936. 

Fry: Yes. Now here is Chapman s answer. This is the one I was reading 
to you. And this certainly sounds to me as though there was unani 
mous action on the part of the Council. This is the January 31 
memo of the action which was taken January 28, 1936, to fire him. 

Fritz: There must be something before January 31, because my letter to 
Chapman is dated January 15. 

Fry: Yes. But this is where the file begins so we don t have anything 
earlier than that. That was why I was asking you how you got this 
underway, I thought you might remember how it first started. In 


Fry: your very first letter here, you refer to a letter from Chapman, 

and you say, "I have read your complaints carefully and with a good 
deal of interest. You have my sympathy. You have had a taste for 
two years of what I had for thr^e. You have made a very strong 
case and I feel the Council Is justified to take some action. So 
I gather that this perhaps got underway with a letter from Chapman. 

Fritz: There would have been something 

Fry: Well, that s what I thought, that somewhere along the way this got 
started with some other correspondence. 

Fritz: Earlier than January 15? 

Fry: Yes, but I don t know where that would be unless it s in some other- 
Fritz: Yes. Well, I m glad you have this much. As I said earlier, it was 
painful and regrettable, and I regretted having to do this because 
I liked Reed and he had a lot of good qualities, as you see I men 
tioned in one letter of January 15, 1936. 

I believe though that Chapman was trying to do something for the 
Society to shake it loose. It was getting stodgy and also it 
wasn t keeping up with the work. You see, this was In the Thirties 
during the depression. The Society of American Foresters got more 
members during the depression. There was a net gain. 

Take right here in this school: We had more students in 1937 than 
we have right now. We had about 375 students majoring in forestry. 
Right now I doubt that we have two hundred. It was all due to the 
CCC and the WPA programs because in them they were practically 
guaranteed jobs as foremen. It was a good thing for them. 

Fry: But I gather that the S.A.F. was not particularly long on funds 
because when the question of a new editor came up in 1934 (this 
editor that the Holy Twelve wanted), the whole idea was that every 
body thought that you should have a paid editor, but nobody knew 
from where the funds would come for a paid editor at that time. 

Fritz: Well, of course, they were getting new members. They lost some 
but they were getting more new members. But when you add it all 
up, that wouldn t be a great deal of money. Five dollars a head 
I think the dues were at that time. They were very moderate. 

Fry: As a matter of fact, I think some of the men who came to Reed s 
defense were men who had been on a committee that previously had 
raised money to first start paying the executive secretary. And 
I think that s some of these men here. 

Fritz: That I don t remember. There are a good lot of men here, good 
reasonab le men. 

Fry: It must have been a little painful to have gone against them too, 


Fry: then, along with Reed. 

Fritz: Yes, It was Indeed, but I would say, looking over that list that 

you have, I would say none of them were as well acquainted with the 
situation as Chapman and I. Now I ,;as helping Chapman to make some 
thing of the Society, and we needed a man of Imagination and a hard 
worker. Chapman was a terrific worker but at the same time, he was 
just like a steam roller. He didn t care who was hurt. 

Fry: Well, what about these two theories that seem to be going around 

the grapevine? One of the theories was that the firing was because 
of the difficulty between two men who could not get along; I sup 
pose that was Chapman and Reed. And a second theory that Chapman 
had heard was that Reed s trouble was with men in the United States 
Forest Service who had finally accomplished their foul purpose. 
And Chapman comments: "They did not realize that the Council is 
free from the influence of the Forest Service." Do you agree with 
Chapman s comment? 

Fritz: I should say not. There were always some U.S.F.S. men on the 
Counci I . 

Fry: You think that the Council at that time was not free from the For 
est Service? 

Fritz: They certainly tried to influence it. 

Fry: Well, do you think this firing was a part of this larger problem 
then, of too much Forest Service influence? Because that s what 
this grapevine theory hinted. 

Fritz: Of course, I don t think much of their thinking that way. As I 
said earlier, the Forest Service wanted a pliant secretary, one 
they could influence in their behalf. 

Fry: So this might have had an element of truth in it then? 

Fritz: Oh yes. Decidedly so. I had Forest Service men come to me and 

sound me out on certain things to see where I stood, in other words, 
to see if they could use me or not. Well, sometimes I would have 
to side with the Forest Service. Sometimes I wouldn t, and I 
wouldn t budge if I thought I was right. And that was probably 
I ike Chapman too. 

Fry: There were some other I was wondering about the section of this 
controversy that concerned the timing and if you remembered any 
thing about this. There s a letter here from Kellogg that asked 
you, "What do you know about the talk going around that the Coun 
ci I has tied a can on Frank Reed?" 

You say, "I have your note concerning Frank Reed. I m not in a 
position to comment on Reed s status, which is a matter purely be 
tween himself and the Council." You re living up to the letter 


Fry: of the law here as laid down by the entire Council. 

fritz: It s too bad li got out, although I don t know why It was mado a 

secret. Chapman ought to have been smart enough to know that even 
he himself would let go of It In general conversation. 

Fry: Then the question came up: Should they send a copy of the charges 

to Reed because then Reed had begun to say that he had been dismissed 
but that he had never seen a copy of the charges. 

Fritz: Is that so? 

Fry: And so here s your answer: Chapman circularized the Council and 
asked if the Council felt that they could at that point release 
the charges to Reed. 

Fritz: Looking back, I m surprised that Reed was not given a list of the 
charges against him. 

Fry: Well, Reed himself I m not sure. It s not clear to me that Reed 
was supposed to be told at all. 

Fritz: That s not very nice, and that s probably one reason Chapman wanted 
It confidential . 

Fry: Yes, and that s probably one reason see, you were supposed to even 
destroy this memo that Chapman sent you. He says at the end of 
this letter telling about the action, to please destroy it. 

Fritz: He asked me to destroy it? I think that s typical of Chapman. 
Things like that, I didn t like because it s a darn good thing 
that a man like Chapman didn t become President of the United 
States. We d have had a helluva time with Congress. 

Fry: Well, then in August the next step was that there was a petition 

to review Reed s firing and it was signed by these men here. These 
nine men with the exception of Damtoft. 

Fritz: I m sure they were not of the same school. Reed was a Biltmore 
forester and I m sure Damtoft was a Yale forester. 

Fry: You think that this might have had something to do with Damtoft s 
not asking for a review. I think the idea of the review was that 
Reed might be rehired or reinstated. 

Fritz: Well, you can see from that that there were two .schools of thought. 
There was a real schism in the Society. When it came to improving 
the Society and the secretary s office, I was certainly with Chap 
man. But when it came to policy matters, Chapman and I certainly 
didn t see eye to eye at all, and certainly not in regard to the 
Forest Service, because I was a private enterpriser. I learned 
that in my early days, when I had to listen to a lot of screwball 
socialism from an uncle, uncle by marriage and a ne er-do-well. 


Fry: Well, did you think that Reed s firing had something to do with 
that schism or not? 

Fritz: Well, it certainly kept It allvd. He didn t cause It. Chapman 
made many enemies as a result of deals like this keeping a man 
In complete darkness. And frankly, I had forgotten that it was 
kept in darkness. And I don t know why there isn t a letter in my 
file In which I protest that a man should be furnished with a set of 
the charges. That s true in law. 

Fry: Later, when you abstained in the balloting of the total membership, 
do you remember why you felt that you should abstain from voting 
at that time? This file still has your unmarked ballot. 

Fritz: I had an unmarked ballot? 

Fry: Yes. Now, let s see, there is something written on it: "No vote 
cast. Was member of the CouncI I at the time. I sti I I feel the 
Council was right but feel also that Chapman s handling of case 
was very tactless if not unethical." Well, that was probably a 
protest vote against Chapman. Is that what you meant? 

Fritz: I had given him my letter of O.K. the letter of January 15, 1936. 

Fry: Yes. That was for the Council vote. Later on, a petition was sent 
out to every S.A.F. member, and you had to vote on it. So, in other 
words, the entire S.A.F. sat In judgment on this whole thing. 

Fritz: Chapman s handling of the case was very tactless, if not unethical. 
It was a very typical dealing of Chapman. Certainly you can handle 
a case like this more aptly and not create a stink through all the 
Society of American Foresters, and Chapman had a knack for he 
could arouse more opposition and more support. And that just shows 
all the way through that Chapman was one of the heaviest contributors 
to the schism In the Society of American Foresters of those days on 
not only policy matters, but matters of administration and of god 
knows what else, and of individual members. 

He ruined one man completely by an accusation which I thought might 
have had an element of truth in It but mostly I would say No. And 
It was very unfair; why bring a thing like that out in the open? 
You notice how private business handles such matters. When a ^ar- 
is not up to what the boss requires, the thing is handled quietly. 
He doesn t shout his charges from the rooftops before talking to the 
man himself. 

Well, I m glad that you called this to my attention. I m very glad 
that I didn t send this ballot in, although I thought that I had 
voted. My recollection must have been influenced by my letter of 
January 15. The whole thing was made a mess by a viciously vindic 
tive president. 

Maunder: Was that note that you wrote on the ballot one which you have 




subsequently, in reviewing this file, put on the ballot? 


Fry : 


No. I wouldn t 
the same time. 

do that on my own copy. 
Once I filed something, 

It must havo boon nt ;ibout 
I rarely had to refer to it 

When was that put on the ballot? 

Well, you will notice that in my letters, I often write marginal 
notes and comments as I read the letter. I still do it. Now, the 
handwriting there is the handwriting of that time. Now, my hand 
writing has gotten worse and worse. I can t read it myself. But 
it was not quite as bad as Chapman s. Chapman s required a great 
deal of study, very illegible. 

Oh yes. That s going to be a problem for a future historian. 
a letter here from Chapman. 

Here s 

You might find my what did I call them? translations, or decipher 

Yes. Some of Chapman s letters are "translated" by you. 

Frankly, I hate to have you inquire Into these things so much and 
so deeply because they are very very distasteful to me. I think 
we ve gone far enough into this. It s distasteful because of Chap 
man s attitude. It s distasteful because I had to go against a 
man I personally liked, and it s distasteful because the organi 
zation, the federal Forest Service, was so small-minded in so many 

The U.S.F.S. badly needed, in those days, older heads free from 
emotional spasms. It acted like sophomores. We were all too much 
of the same age. All of us had to learn not only forestry bu^ how 
to get along. 

Well, I think you have spelled out all that we want to know or need 
to know on the subject, don t you? I think we re ready to go on to 
other subjects. 

Protection of Members 

The Cox Case 

Fry: I thought we might start in on this other case and then before we 
get into the Black case, it might be a good idea to look at those 
letters and f i les. 

Fritz: Do you want to go into the Black case now? 
Fry: On Cox. 


Fritz: Take the Cox case first; the Black case will be longer. 

Fry: The Black case is probably something you will want to check your 
files on too, before we start talking about it. 

Fritz: We can go through the Cox case very quickly because I don t know 
much about it. That was William T. Cox, wasn t it? 

Maunder: Yes, state forester of Minnesota. 

Fritz: I never knew him very well. At some time, I had chats with him. 
I regarded him as a man of strong personality, great ability, and 
one who was trying to do something for American forestry and for 
est conservation in the way that he thought It should be done. 

Fry: Here are a few notes on it. Here s a letter from Cox to Professor 
Chapman on February 21, 1933. 

Maunder: I think maybe as an introductory statement to this discussion, it 
ought to be pointed out that these pieces we are going through now 
signify the S.A.F. policy question, of whether to support members 
who were threatened by political displacement, and whether to dis 
cipline members whose behavior was considered unprofessional. It s 
to go into these famous test cases that we want to inquire into 
these files that you have on them. 

Fry: In other words, the Cox case signifies the first time that the 

S.A.F. did enter into one of these to try to protect an employee. 

Fritz: I don t recall that I really got into this. 

Maunder: Well, it was in 1933. 

Fritz: Here s something. 

Maunder: This is a letter from you to whom? 

Fry: This is a letter from Fritz to Chapman after the hearing. 

Fritz: I m going to read over this letter here to acquaint myself with the 
situation and also the initial letter that was responsible for the 
controversy concerning W. T. Cox. I received the Cox file because 
at that time, March, 1933, I must have been a member of the Council. 

Fry: Yes. 

Fritz: Otherwise I would not have been involved in it at all. 

Fry: In fact, we are talking about all of these things because 

Maunder: You were on the Council. 

Fritz: Apparently, I got a sheaf of documents on the Cox case as a member 


Fritz: of the Council at that time and that s why I got it. Here s some 
thing of Interest: "The situation in Wisconsin and Minnesota will 
be repeated in other states . . ." This Is In my letter of March 
29, 1933, to Chapman. "We had 4 he beginning of one in California , 
last fall." 

Fry: That was the beginning of the Black case, I guess. 

Fritz: "There would not be so likely a repetition if the state boards 

would learn that behind the state forester is a professional society 
ready to vigorously back him up when certain principles for which 
the profession stands are violated, as is the case in Wisconsin and 
Minnesota. But instead of our professional society being held in 
respect, it is actually held in contempt by these officials, if they 
know it exists at all." 

Then here s a personal comment that I didn t recall making but I m 
pleased I made it because I feel the same way about it right now. 
"I was attracted to forestry by the courage of such men as Fernow 
and Pinchot, but I must confess that since I have been a member of 
the profession, I have suffered disillusionment." 

Fry: I think the question in this case was whether Cox really was in 
competent or whether he was being fired as a political football. 
The Immediate question before the Council was whether or not to 
let the executive secretary go up and make an investigation. 

Fritz: Well, in the third paragraph of my letter of March 29, 1933, I go 
into just personal reactions. "Our lack of initiative in carry 
ing out that part of our constitution which reads: to advance 
the science, practice and standards of forestry in America. This 
seems to date from 1924, when at the annual meeting the president 
especially enunciated a hands-off policy." (Oh my god, Mulford 
was president!) "What s the good of that statement in the con 
stitution if the Society is afraid to act on it? Every member 
must pause to wonder what the Society really has to offer him and 
why we have an executive secretary. If that statement of aims 
means nothing, then I am for devoting ninety percent of the Society s 
income to the Journal of Forestry for publishing monographs, giving 
research grants, and so~~on. At least, they are harmless. Especial Iv 
when the editor dares act for the profession only after he has 
pleased the officer. 

"I can just picture myself trying to editorialize the Wisconsin and 
Minnesota situation and trying to point out the position the pro 
fession should take without having it reported to the president and 
(then) thrown out. I have long been convinced that we made a mis 
take on having a Forest Service officer serve as president. Al 
though Granger tried to act independently at the outset, he seems 
to have fallen into the safe ways of a federal officer. This is 
an election year. We have a chance to at least nominate men who 
have the courage of their convictions. Too many of our past offi 
cers have looked upon the election to office as an honor rather 




than the awarding of a 
enough to write that. 

job." Gee whiz, I didn t know I had sense 



Maunder : 




Fry : 



Let me ask you something. Zon and Granger were not especially 
eager for 5.A.F. to take on such cases as this. Is It just 
what you said In that letter, a reflection of that fact? Why 
were they not anxious to take on th"t? 

1933. That was a time when Franklin Roosevelt told the federal 
foresters to lay off public expression on certain policy matters 
that might react against the Administration. One of them, of 
course, was reorganization of the federal bureaus. 

Well, this was not so much Involved with federal 
was more a state forestry problem. 

bureaus. This 

And Zon was at the Minnesota Experiment Station at this time. 
What was his relationship to Cox in al I of this? 

Yes. Zon was a federal employee. Zon was the type of man who 
would shove it off on Chapman, and that was just what Chapman 
loved, although I don t know that Zon actually did it. Chapman, 
as I told you earlier, was the hatchet man for the U.S.F.S. 
Federal officials serving on the S.A.F. Council have to be 
circumspect In dealing with state officers. 

Do you think that the attitude of people like Zon and Granger 
and others in the Forest Service could be related to a point 
made in this preliminary statement of February 15, which must 
have come from the S.A.F. office? The statement was made that 
the United States Forest Service first had the role of stabili 
zing forestry employment and they more or less did this 
effectively, apparently. But then by the Thirties, there were 
a number of foresters who were not in federal employment, and it 
was time to have some wider organization to take over this activity. 

So perhaps this Cox case came just at a time when some of you 
were feeling that the Forest Service was no longer adequate to 
protect all their jobs and it was time the S.A.F. stepped in. 
My theory was that Granger and these others in the Forest Service 
were a little reluctant to relinquish this position. 

Well, by what right does a federal bureau undertake to be a 
monitor of the ethics, the thinking, the policies, of state 
officials and others? It s not their business. 

Were there cases before this where the federal Forest Service had 
been able to assist state foresters who were beset by state politics? 

You mean openly on their own letterheads? I doubt it, if it was 
during the F.D.R. days. They were afraid of F.D.R. 

There s a long summary in this file (and as I read through it, I 
realized it had been written by Chapman although it s unsighed) 
of a whole series of state foresters who were replaced in their 
.jobs by others because of a chanqe in the state administration. 


p r y: And that was written by Chapman who apparently felt that this 
shouldn t be undertaken by S.A.F. 

Fritz: Now there again, If a certain Job Is held by appointment of the 

governor, It certainly is his right to make a change when he takes 
office, wise or unwise. This happe-.ed In our own state just when 
our own new governor, Reagan, came in. He got a new head of the 
Resources Agency. I must say he picked a man who has all the 
qualifications for the job experience, interest, and high personal 
qua I i ties. 

Maunder: You re talking about whom? 

Fritz: Norman B. Livermore, Jr. It was a wonderful appointment. Now 
sometimes those jobs go to political hacks. That s a risk you 
have to take in a democracy. Now, Chapman would not recognize 
such a risk. He figured that that governor would have to do what 
Chapman wants. It doesn t work out that way. Sometimes you have 
to take a I icki ng. 

Fry: The main issue in this Cox thing is that when Reed did appear 

before the Minnesota commission on behalf of Cox, he went further 
than many In S.A.F. felt he should have gone. And In your file 
here there are comments about Reed not doing adequate research 
when he went to Minnesota, that he didn t question people on both 
sides of the Issue. Although the Minnesota section of the S.A.F. 
(and Mr. Shirley was the head of that section at that time) 
approved his action, later, members complained that they had not 
seen Reed s statement before the hearing, so they didn t really 
know what statement Reed was going to read. 

Fritz: Is it in here? 

Fry: Yes, it is. This statement is in Society Affairs, in the Journal 
of Forestry. It was one of the spring, 1933, issues. 

Fritz: This is a galley proof. Apparently, Reed sent me this to do over. 

Fry: "On February II, Commissioner Cox was suspended by the Conserva 
tion Commission on charges of complete lack of executive ability, 
and March 31 was set as the date for the hearing." The charges are 
"Studied contempt for and Indifference to the Conservation Com 
mission and its policies. This action was taken by the vote of 
three members of the Commission: Mr. W.A. McQuen, Mr. John Foley 
and Mr. Richard Bai ley, who are the same three that last July 
attempted to oust Mr. Cox. On the other hand are Mr. Ernest Reed 
of St. Paul and Mr. James T. Williams of Minneapolis, whose formal 
refusal to agree to Mr. Cox s dismissal led up to his retention 
until this time. They refused to vote for his dismissal or 
approve the suspension. Mr. Reed stated he had lost confidence 
in some of his colleagues." 

This was from the preliminary statement which was sent out to 
Counci I members on February 15. 

Fritz: So far I don t see anything in Franklin Reed s statement in Minnesota 


Fritz: that I would consider out of order. 

Fry: The criticisms against Reed were, I think, that he did this on 
his own; It was a unilateral action. The statement Itself was. 
He was sent up there to Investigate but according to Granger s 
letters here, he was not sent there to make a definite statement. 

Fritz: I don t know anything about that, but it might have been an escape 
hatch for Granger. A man in a secretaryship should know that he 
should not make statements that would not be approved by his Counci 
unless he makes it clear he is speaking only for himself. 

Fry: Well, maybe you could just make some statements on the people who 
seemed to be in favor of the S.A.F. adopting this policy at this 
time and those who felt it shouldn t be done. Apparently, the Cox 
case was a kind of debacle and left a number of people divided on 
the advisability of doing this with an executive secretary, and 
whether a secretary should be free to act on his own after he went 
in and investigated, or whether he had to wait for advice from the 
Counci I . 

Fritz: Well, I think the executive secretary should first clear it with 
the Council. Now, as I told you before, I don t remember much 
about the Cox case except that there was such a case. My part in 
it was very, very small and only as a member of the Council. And 
my stand in the situation is not that Cox was right or wrong, or 
that the governor was right or wrong, but that it is a matter of 
Society business that if we state in the Constitution that the 
purpose of the Society is to protect the interest of its members, 
then it should do something about acting on those interests. 

At the same time, not having read these letters through my let 
ters from March 29, 1933: one to Chapman, one to Ovid Butler and 
one to Granger as president I feel first of all that the Society 
should find out what the situation is, what the actual truth of 
the allegations and defenses are, instead of going off half-cocked. 
Please remember also that I have not had occasion to refer to this 
file since the case. I have forgotten too that Granger was presi 
dent. He cooled toward me, perhaps because I could not follow him 
one hundred percent. 

Fry: Would you try to place this Cox case in an historical perspective 
for us? Do you feel that it did set a precedent? 

Fritz: It had a bearing because when you have a man like Chapman who loves 
a fight and has a chance to get into one, it is certain to make 
headlines. Also it brings out the weakness of the Society. You 
write a Constitution and you don t abide by it. You don t act on 

Fry: But In this (Minnesota) case, it was apparently a fairly competent 
state forester who was about to be let go, and the letters in your 
file have statements both pro and con on his actions while he was 


Fry: state forester. But there are also some statements in here about 
the other state foresters who have been fired around the country. 
I d like to ask you 1f you agree with this: that while these state 
foresters lost their jobs 1n a political turnover or in an issue 
that was largely political, they were replaced by other graduate 
foresters. As long as one graduate forester is replaced by another 
graduate forester, should S.A.F. l iave any grounds to complain? 

Fritz: If the job of state forester is a political one in the sense that 
the incumbent takes office by the will of the governor, he can t 
complain if he is displaced. In California, the State Forester is 
on civil service, but the Director of Natural Resources, and now 
the Director of Conservation, is a political appointee; and 
DeWitt Nelson, who was State Forester then, was made Director of 
Resources by Governor Warren, kept in that office by Governor 
Knight, both of them Republicans, and retained in that office by 
the Democratic Governor Brown for two terms. This shows that it 
wasn t political here in spite of the fact that the governor had 
the authority to replace the man if he should want to. 

It shows tnat if a man is circumspect in what he does, and does a 
good job, and doesn t get the governor and his people in a jam, 
more than likely a sensible governor will keep a professional man 
like that on the job because he s not harming the governor, he s 
doing the governor good, he s doing him a favor. 

My whole part in this Cox case 1s set forth 1n the letters that 
you have here. They re all dated March 29, 1933, all three of them. 

The Black Case 

Maunder: Emanuel , in your own life, the S. Rexford Black case began with 
your being appointed to the State Board of Forestry in 1934 by 
Governor Merriam. You went to Sacramento to be sworn in to the 
State Board of Forestry and to attend your first meeting there 
which the chairman, Rex Black, had called for December 13. 

There is, of course, a great deal of material in your files here 
regarding this particular matter: clippings from the Sacramento 
Bee of the dates in question and for several days after,* other 
correspondence, and much other material which covers the subject 
in detail. But it seems to need a little clarification and it s 
on that that we would like to talk today. 

The first question that comes to mind upon reading this file is 
simply this: You were, of course, a sensitive participant and 

*See Appendices B-I, pp. 302-9, Sacramento Bee, 24 October 
1932, 25 October 1932, 14 December 1934; San Francisco Chronicle 
15 December 1934; Sacramento Bee, 17 December 1934; Sacramento 
Union. 13 June 1936. See alsoTT Rexford Black, "Private and 
State Forestry in California," typed transcript of tape-recorded 
Interview by Amelia Roberts Fry, University of California Bancroft 
Library Regional Oral History Office, Berkeley, 1968. 


Maunder: observer of the forestry scene in the year 1934, a man considered 
to have a good deal of know-how about the forestry problems of the 
state, or you wouldn t have been considered for this appointment 
to the State Board of Forestry. Yet when you got down there, you 
resigned even before you were sworn in as a member. The declared 
reason that you gave at that time is that you found to your horror 
that you were being used in this instance as a cat s paw by the 
chairman of the State Board of Forestry, Mr. Black, who was making 
an endeavor to fire the State Forester, who .was at that time Mr. 
M. B. Pratt. 

Now the question is, were you totally unaware of any implications 
of your appointment in this regard? We wonder about this and how 
you could come to this meeting knowing that there was so much fat 
in the fire over Pratt continuing. And knowing Black as well as 
you did at that time, had you had no forewarning whatsoever of 
what Black was trying to do here? 

Fritz: First, you have an advantage over me in that you have read the 
file very recently while I have not looked it over for thirty 
years. I had been asked by telephone if I would serve on the 
Forestry Board, and how I felt about Pratt, the State Forester, 
as to making a change In the State Division of Forestry. 

Fry: Was this Black who telephoned you? 

Fritz: I don t recall. It must have been Black. 

Maunder: That telephone call came to you where here on the Berkeley campus? 

Fritz: No. At my home. 

Maunder: This was shortly before this meeting that was to be held in Sacra 

Fritz: Yes, within a week. 

Maunder: And you were asked by the caller, who probably would have been 
Black, the chairman? 

Fritz: Most likely Black. 

Maunder: And he made inquiry of you as to whether you would be a member of 
the Board and also how you felt about Pratt. Is that right? 

Fritz: That s correct. 

Maunder: Can you elaborate about that discussion on the telephone further? 

Fritz: Well, it wasn t a very long call. As I recall it, he brought up 

the matter of getting Pratt out of the state forester job and get 
ting someone else in. Who it might have been, I don t recall; I 





don t think the Board had anyone in mind, 
mento to be sworn in. 

I was to go to Sacra- 




Then when you went to Sacrament j for the December 13 meeting, why 
did you suddenly turn about and say that you would not serve on 
the Board? 

Well, I was up there practically all day, most of it just sitting 
around in the hotel waiting to be called. I don t know the reason 
for the delay. I think it was in Governor Merrlam s office. He 
was busy with something and couldn t see me. I believe the gover 
nor did the swearing-in. 

So it gave me a chance also to talk to some of the other Board 
members. And right now I recall that we also sat around in a room 
in the State Forestry building in Sacramento where some of the 
other members were talking to me about what they planned to do. 
Black, of course, was very busy keeping in touch with the governor s 
secretary to see when we could go down. But the more these other 
Board members spoke, the more I thought that I was being dragged 
into something that I didn t like or fully understand. First of 
all, I was agreeable to asking Pratt to resign. 1 would oppose 
his being fired. Give him a chance to resign his state forester- 
ship and then give him another job in the Division, a job that 
would have to be created or developed in some other way by a 
shift in the personnel. 

You felt, I take it from that statement, that Pratt was not really 
doing the job as it should be done. 

Fritz: Pratt was a very good man for the early days of the State Division 

of Forestry. But the job grew out of his hands. That s understand 

able. He was one of the real old-timers, 
from the forestry school in 1905. 

think he graduated 

Pratt s great strength lay in his dealing with people. He had a 
great knack for dealing with women s clubs, lunch clubs, federa 
tions of this and that; he was also a good writer and a good speaker, 
But his administration was very weak and, as I say, the job was 
growing. There were more and more responsibilities for the State, 
especially for fire protection. And there was this battle concern 
ing federal regulation of forest practices. Then also there were 
the C.C.C. and W.P.A. programs Involving the employment of hun 
dreds of people. 

Was there some criticism of Pratt s emphasis on fire prevention in 
the southern counties of the state as against working more ener 
getically in the northern counties? 

I don t know about that. 

But the implication is that the Division of Forestry in those days 









was puttinq rather heavy emphasis on its protection in the southern 
part of the state rather than in the northern. 

It was sure of support down the:e. 

And do I get the impression that there was a feeling of criticism 
on the part of Rex Black and the northern California industry men 
over this emphasis? Has that got anything to do with this? 

If so, I don t recall it. I was not well acquainted with southern 
California, except that watershed fires down there are extremely 

Now we re talking here about the state forestry people, not the 
U.S. forestry people, and what about the work that was being done 
by the state forester at this time? Was he putting his emphasis 
on the southern counties too, or what s at the root of these 
charges, this effort on the part of Black to get rid of him? 

I might say that in those days I was Just beginning to get inter 
ested. I just happened to be shoved into these early day con 
troversies because I happened to have sentiments comparable to 
those who were talking to me. 

The man who could best tell you that, one who was a very, very 
close friend of Merritt Pratt, was Woodbridge Metcalf. He spent 
a lot of his time in southern California on fire matters. If 
Pratt gave any preference to southern California, I think he was 
justified because there, he was sure of support. What he wanted 
to accomplish would be what the people down there not only wanted, 
but what they badly needed. Up here, the further any forester 
stayed away from the landowners grazing landowners or timber 
landowners the better they liked it. In southern California, 
there was very strong interest because of watershed protection 
needs. In the north, the interest was spotty. 

Dunwoody had, previous to this, organized a lot of local fire pro 
tective groups through the Chamber of Commerce in southern counties 
and towns and had set up volunteer fire groups, all of which were 
closely related, according to Dunwoody, with the State Forester s 
Office; so I would assume that there was a great deal of activity 
on the part of Mr. Pratt and the people in the south. And just as 
you ve Indicated, there probably was not nearly as much activity 

going on in the north. Now, was it Black s intention 
change in this by getting a change In state forester? 

to get a 

Not that I recall. Because northern California was organized also; 
we had private forest protective agencies. Some of them antedated 
the California Forest Protective Association. 

Can you recall what it was that triggered your sudden decision not 
to be sworn in? 



Yes. I recall that well. While in Sacramento, 
people about the situation and found that I was 

I talked to several 
not fully informed. 















I wasn t in on all that went before. I wasn t too close fo Pratt; 
we were friendly but not close 

Hadn t you been associated with him before here at the School of 

No. I took his job in 1919. He had resigned to go to the state 
office. I didn t meet him until maybe a year or two after I ar 
rived in 1919. The exact details may have escaped me, but this 
is the way I recall it: From those I spoke to in Sacramento, I 
learned more of the situation and felt I let myself into something 
that I didn t know enough about. Now I don t hold that against 
Rex Black. Maybe he was mislead when I talked to him over the 
telephone. A telephone is a very unsatisfactory way to carry on 
a business of that kind, and I probably didn t ask enough ques 
tions about what was behind it. 

Do you remember whether you got this feeling from people in the 
Forestry Division there in Sacramento, some of Pratt s own people? 

No. I knew some of them, of course, and I knew also that it was a 
weak administration. No, I got that feeling from people outside 
the administration. Ed Kotok came to my office one day and unbur 
dened about Pratt, saying, "I ll get him out." 

Pratt had a very strong point for which I admired him: He would 
not knuckle under for anybody in the Forest Service who was trying 
to get him to line up with it to strengthen their hands. He knew 
that, in the end, he would be the loser. What year was that? 


He was in office another nine or ten years after this episode. 
He d been in the federal Forest Service for about ten years. 
What had Kotok told you? 

To use his exact words (I remember them distinctly because they 
made such an impression as coming from a federal man): "I m 
going to get him." 

This was when Kotok was head of the Experiment Station? 

Yes. His office was in our building. 

And was this before you were up as a member of the Board? 


I notice here too that the California stockmen, the wool growers, 


Maunder: and other associations were rather strongly opposed to ousting 

Fritz: Opposed to ousting Pratt? 

Maunder: That s right. And labeled Black as being the person who was trying 
to get rid of him. For example, W. P. Wing, secretary of the wool 
growers group, is quoted as stating here, "Black has been after 
Pratt for four years. Black is secretary of the California Forest 
Protective Association, an organization of the private timber in 
terests who are opposed to Pratt." 

Fritz: Well, now that you mention Wing, the chances are that I spoke to 
him at some time earlier. I still know Wing and very favorably, 
although at that time, he got me a little angry for capitalizing 
on my action. I did speak to him after I declined being sworn in. 



have a clipping here from the Sacramento Bee of December 14, 1934, 
think this is such a classic lead for a news story that I d like 

to read it into the oral 
George Dean. It begins: 

history interview. It s written by 

"Professor Emanuel Fritz, newly appointed member to 
the State Board of Forestry, sat yesterday afternoon 
in the lobby of the Hotel Senator calmly reading 
Anthony Adverse and his literary bent blocked a move 
to oust Merritt B. Pratt as State Forester. As a 
climax to a tense situation, Fritz today telegraphed 
his resignation to Governor Frank F. Merriam less 
than forty-eight hours after his appointment and 
stranger still, before he had taken the oath of 

So you resigned from something that you weren t a member of yet. 

That s a reporter s statement. He wasn 
It was a very uncomfortable period. It 
rainy and gloomy. 1 don t think it was 

t with 
was in 


me very long. 
December and very 
warm in the lobby of 

the Senator Hotel, and I think I still had on my raincoat. 

Well, anyway, Wing was bent on preserving Pratt and I couldn t 
understand that because Pratt was against the burning being con 
ducted by the grazing men. Pratt probably had the same feeling 
I had at that time and still have, that it s the stockmen s land 
and if they think they can get more grass by burning, it s cer 
tainly their privilege to try it. I used to tell stockmen that if 
they let their fire run across their land into land that is dedi 
cated to the growing of timber, then that s where I get into the 
picture. Three or four years later, I had a part in legislation 
that set up the cooperative burning, or controlled burning system. 
It solved many forestry problems. 

Maunder: It s a rather interesting thing to note here that the other members 


Maunder: of the Forestry Board were present in Sacramento that day B. C, 
McAllaster of Piedmont, H. S. Oilman of Los Angeles, and Ernest 
0. Dudley of Exeter and they were meetlnq in the Board s room 
in the Division of Forestry, reudy to cast their votes for the 
State Forester if the matter came up. You evidently were there 
for a short time with them. 

Fritz: Perhaps. I think it was to have been an official Board meeting, 
The Rex Black group was sincerely trying to get more forestry 
into the woods, particularly selective cutting. Pratt was for 
that too, but he lacked the steam. 

Maunder: In other words, what you re saying is that this is an issue in 
which the industry and the Forest Service were at one with each 
other and were fighting to get rid of Pratt? 

Fritz: Yes, I think that s true. But it was limited mostly to top men 
and mainly in the pine industry. I don t think the redwood peo 
ple took much interest in it. Except for a few, they were very 
provincial at that time and their problems were different. 

Maunder: What about the membership of the California Forest Protective 

Fritz: That was statewide. Anybody who owned forest land to be protected 
could be a member, redwood or pine. 

Maunder: But wasn t this the heart of the opposition to Pratt? Wasn t 
Black the secretary of this Association? 

Fritz: Yes. 

Maunder: And wasn t the man that they had hand picked to take Pratt s place 
Bill Schofield? Bill was actually sworn in as state forester here 
briefly for one day, I believe, and then relieved. He was the man 
that was to be recommended. 

Fritz: I might have known that at the time but I don t recall it now. I 
know that Schofield had been considered at other times. He would 
have made an excellent State Forester. 

Fry: I believe this issue came out later In the S.A.F. investigation. 
There were some letters written on it. 

Fritz: If it came out in the S.A.F. investigation, then I must have known 
about it at the time because I was still a member of the Council 
then, wasn t I? 

Fry: Yes, you were. This is your file on the whole thing right here. 

Maunder: Emanuel, as a member of the Council in 1934, you must have been 
rather intensely aware of the attitude of the hierarchy of S.A.F. 








with roqard to the ethics of the profession. This was a matter of 
great discussion and interest at that time, was it not? 

I think that was about the beginning of the many years spent in 
writing a code of ethics for the Society of American Foresters. 
But the Society was not involved in this case until its president, 
Chapman, pushed it in. 

What I m trying to get at is this: Were you in any way influenced 
in your decision to refuse to be a member of the Board by what you 
felt might be professional considerations? Did you feel perhaps 
that you were becoming party to something that wasn t ethically 
sound? I gather that you did because you made rather strong 
statements in saying that you would not serve. 

As far as the code of ethics was concerned, I think it was all 
right; but from the standpoint of fairness to Pratt, I don t think 
it was right to kick a man out of his job. But to let him stay on 

In another category would have been a 
told that they were going to set up a 
you re dealing with a public agency 
state, you ve got to be sure you ve got 
you be 1 1 eve It. 

fair thing to do. I was 
job like that, but when 
whether it s federal or 
it In your hand before 

There was talk of setting up a special Job for Pratt, one that 
would include public relations, making addresses, and the like. 
Pratt would have done an excellent job. He had a real bent for 
it. I believe he would have advanced forestry better than he was 
doing as State Forester. Had there been a firm commitment by 
someone in authority that such a job would be created for Pratt, 
at no loss in salary, I would have gone to Pratt direct and told 
him that I favored his resigning and taking the other job. He 
would have been foolish to resign with the new job only an assump 
tion. I think I could have convinced him he would be better off. 

Well, was it Chapman who brought the charges against Black, or 
was it someone else? 

It was a committee.* No, it must have been the signers of a 
petition. Wasn t Woodbury one of them? 

The charges against Black were signed by seven people, the names 
of whom were withheld. 

Yes. Unless my memory is incorrect, Kotok and Show and Woodbury 
were among those who signed. 

All three were Forest Service men. 

Yes. The reason that Kotok wanted Pratt out was that the Forest 

*See Appendix J, pp. 3 1 0-1 3, notes from S.A.F. Affairs, 
February, 1936. 


Fritz: Service wanted a man in the job it could control, especially when 
this matter of federal regulation of timber would come up. 

Maunder: That seems a little inconsistent to me. If Kotok was eaqer to 
get Pratt out, why would he then be one of those who attacked 
Black for trying to get him out? That doesn t make sense at all. 

Fritz: No, it doesn t. The Show-Kotok team (brothers-in-law) was an am 
bitious pair. Don t forget too that anyone who was antf federal 
regulations was beyond the pale, and Black was certainly against 
federal regulations as strongly as I was. There was another pos 
sible reason. Kotok wanted more state funds to study flood control 
in southern California. He was in Sacramento a good deal trying 
to get money from the legislature. Perhaps Pratt felt that Kotok 
was intruding into state matters. Pratt had appropriations of his 
own to fight for. 

Fry: I got the impression that Mr. Kotok was brought into this because 
he was an S.A.F. Council member at the time. 

Fritz: I asked Woodbury, "Why did you sign that petition?" And he said, 
"Well, here is a complaint being made and I think it ought to come 
out in the open in the Society." I don t think he cared whether 
Pratt stayed or got out. He was on the moderate side. 

Maunder: Pratt had faced a possible ouster In 1932, two years before, when 
the governor was James Rolph. Also again, on charges filed by 
Rex Black. 

Fritz: What were the charges? 

Maunder: That he is incompetent to handle the forestry camp and unemployment 

Fry: I believe that Black was also in some executive capacity in that 
program, wasn t he? 

Fritz: I think he was, but I don t remember for sure. That was what they 
called the S.E.R.A. camp before the W.P.A. and C.C.C. Now that 
you mention it, I think Black was dissatisfied with Pratt s hand 
ling of these programs. 

Fry: Yes. Black apparently handled this, and he wrote a report.* 

Fritz: I remember that very well because I wrote a review of the report 

one man made. I think his name was Cutler. He protested to Black 
that I made it appear that I was involved in S.E.R.A., taking some 
glory away from this particular man who protested. Actually, I had 
no part in S.E.R.A. I was just reviewing a report as a reviewer. 

^California State Labor Camps Report, July, 1932. Sacramento, 
California. For a copy of this report reprinted from the Journal 
of Forestry, see Appendix K, pp. 314-15. 






c rv: 








There were a lot of undercurrents that are rusty in my memory. 
This is what we re trying to put together. 

It s those undercurrents that need to be brought out in this 
interview if we can. 

The California federals were rather boastful, as compared with 
the northwest. And there was quite a clique in the making. It 
became very powerful. 

Do you include Woodbury in the clique? Or do you just mean S^ow 
and Kotok primarily? 

It was a Kotok and Show team; Woodbury didn t cotton to either one 
of them. Now how did the Society get interested in this? Who got 
the Society into this? That is the only part in this case that 

Do you know? 



I was in Connecticut for some reason, and naturally I would call on 
the Yale Forest School and my old professors; and the first crack 
out of the box after he said Hello, Chapman said, "Tell me all about 
that situation in California about the state forester and Black." 

How did he know? 
It had been in the press. 
Oh, this was after it broke. 
That was pipelined to him. 

Well, that s what I meant. He would have been sent clippings by 
some of his friends. 

Probably. As I characterized Chapman earlier, he was a great one 
to smell out a battle and get into it. I told him what the situa 
tion looked like to me, and I emphasized that Black and the other 
men who were trying to get the state forestership changed to another 
man were on the right track. We needed a stronger man there, a man 
who could cope with the growing importance of the job. But the way 
they went about it was very tactless and, as it turned out, diffi- 
cu It for them. 


Do you think it was also unethical the way they went about it? 
was on these grounds that Black was ousted from the Society. 



Fritz: He was brought back again too. Don t forget that. 
Fry: Black was? 

Fritz: Black, yes. He was reinstated. I begged Chapman, knowing how 

precipitate he was, to stay out of this matter, and that we could 
handle it in the West. I warned him that he was being used by 
Black s detractors. I was afraid that Chapman would mess it up, 
just as he did other disputes, and have a lot of dirt spread out 
and get the forestry profession again into bad repute. I said, in 
effect, "For heaven sakes, Chapman, keep out of this. This is a 
local matter and you have no business in it. We can handle that 
oursel ves." 

That didn t appeal to him. Later I learned that he was investiga 
ting the matter through his own connections in the West, and of 
course, Pratt would feed him everything that he could get together. 
Chapman set up a committee to bring charges formally. I didn t 
sign that petition. 

Maunder: No, but you passed on the charges after they had been made official 
and sent out. The Council found Black guilty on the 20th of 
November, 1935. 

Fritz: Do you know how they voted? 

Maunder: I m sure it s a matter of record. 

Fry: Everybody but one voted to oust Black. 

Fritz: Do you know who that one was? 

Fry: I think it was Kotok. 

Fritz No sir, it was Fritz. I was the only one who voted No. I voted 
against ouster. Chapman never forgave me for opposing him. 

Maunder: The Council found Black guilty on several counts of the charges 
presented against him. They found that he was guilty of trying, 
without sanction of the State Forestry Board, to get Governor Rolph 
to dismiss Pratt for incompetency and political activities. In 
this 1932 attempt, the governor was of the opinion that Black had 
the full approval of the Board of Forestry when he actually did not, 

Then on another charge Black was found guilty. It was that he had 
discredited Pratt to his supervisors, to the public, and to his 
subordinates. There was evidence that confirmed that he had done 
this. He was also found guilty on the fourth charge which was that 
he, Black, had usurped the authority of the State Forester. 

And on the seventh charge, that when the initiative was won to put 
the State Forester under the protection of civil service, Black 
tried to get the Board of Forestry to dismiss him in the interim 
which Black could have done with the vote of the new Board member, 
Fritz. But Fritz caught on and would not accept the appointment. 


Maunder: Now, on all of these counts, Black was found guilty and as such, 
was thrown out of the membership of the S.A.F. in November, 1935, 
with you as the sole dissenter in that decision. Is that right? 

Fritz: Yes. That was November, 35, and in December, 35, only a few weeks 






later, I was in Portland at 
and asked if I would sign a 
by an independent committee. 
tion, but could not sign it 
look back on it, I think it 

a forestry meeting and was approached 
petition for a rehearing of the case 

I replied that I favored the new peti 
because I was a Council member. As I 
would have been quite proper for me to 

sign it because I was a dissenter of the original. 

Your position does look a little ambiguous from this distahce, 
Emanuel, when it was your action that stopped Black in his attempted 
action to displace Pratt, and then later when you cast the one vote 
for him in the Society s Council. 

The Black case and my declining membership on the Board of Forestry 
are two different matters. Don t forget you ve got seven stipula 
tions here, and I felt that Chapman was extremely unfair in approach 
ing the Council as he did. 

Were you on the Counci I then? 

Yes. It was about the time I was getting badly fed up with the 
way Chapman was running the S.A.F. As I told you, in Portland I 
was asked to sign a petition for Black s reinstatement and begged 
out of it because I was a member of the Council. But I told them 
I was sympathetic toward their purpose and I think the action 
should be reviewed. 

In a letter to Colonel Greeley, I submitted to him a copy of my 
letter to Chapman in which I stated that I thought Black acted 
wrongfully in some of the things but that Black was trying to ac 
complish something good for California forestry in which Pratt was 
not cooperative. I think he deserves a slap on the wrist for his 
actions but that he should not be bilged from the Society. This 
was a two-or three-page letter. It must be in my files. 

It may be in your file on Greeley. 

A committee was set up. Greeley was made chairman. Gree ley s was 
the top name in the forestry profession. His committee voted on 
the Black case exactly the way I had put it in my earlier letter 
to Chapman regarding Black. I won t say that they were influenced 
by it, but that was an obvious situation to me and the way it 
should have been handled. They apparently saw it the same way. 

Haven t we given the Black case sufficient time? Your line of 
questioning indicates a study of my files. I have not referred 
to them for thirty years, unless it was casual or to look up dates. 
This episode occurred so long ago that I had forgotten many details, 


Fritz: although your questioning brought some back to mind. The impor 
tant matter, in my opinion, was the way Chapman forced the Society 
into the case. 

It was an interesting period. There was much opposition to fed 
eral regulation. Not a few foresters In the U.S.F.S. were cool to 
it, as shown in a Society-wide ballot several years later. Some of 
us were doing our best to promote private forestry. To the men in 
private employ should go much credit for stirring up among Important 
private owners an acceptance of forestry. They had not only apathy 
on the part of the industry to contend with, but also the ridicule 
and disparagement from various federal foresters. 

Maunder: So you feel that the real issue at stake in this Black case was 

really federal regulation rather than ethics? Is that what you re 
trying to say? 

Fritz: At the root, it was the private enterprise system. Of course, Chap 
man made it an issue of personal ethics. Chapman s own ethics were 
not above reproach. 

Maunder: Well, I don t see how you can make it a matter of regulation. That 
Isn t really the point. 

Well, call it private enterprise. 

I know that, Emanuel. But what you re dealing with here is a 
specific case in which a man, In this case a defendant, Black, is 
accused of doing certain things against a State Forester, Pratt. 
Now, either he did these things or he didn t do these things. And 
a jury of his peers on which you sat as a member heard the evidence 
in this case, and found Black guilty on a number of counts, judging, 
"Is that right or wrong?" 

Now this other matter may have been Involved. There is no doubt 
that there was antagonism and rivalry between different groups at 
this same time. But that doesn t get away from the fact that the 
charges in this case had nothing to do with regulation at all. 
They had to do with Black specifically against Pratt. 

Yes. You are absolutely correct about that, but Chapman got into 
it because of Black trying to take Pratt s job away from him. And 
the Forest Service Itself was trying to get Pratt out because he 
did not do its bidding. It was a helluva mess. The publicity 
could have been avoided if Chapman had not Interfered. We have 
spent entirely too much time on it in this interview. However, I 
want to add something about Pratt. 

Pratt was still state forester when, in 1943, I had a bill for a 
state forest system introduced by Senator Biggar, and during the 
time an interim legislative committee studied the California for 
est situation, I was that committee s advisor and arranged Its 
field trips. Why should 1, an outsider, undertake legislative 




Fritz: matters? It should have been done by Pratt as state forester. I 
received practically no help from him. I could hardly get a civil 
answer from my questions to him. Yet I had saved him his job when 
I declined Board membership. 

Pratt almost lost us that Interim committee by making it appear 
that the bill was an underhanded scheme to separate him from his 
job. Assemblyman Gardiner Johnson, in defeating the bill, admitted 
to me the next day that he was influenced by Pratt 1 s argument. 
When it was explained to him that the bill did not have, and could 
not have had, any connection with Pratt or his job, he manfully re 
suscitated it and in a few hours, had it passed. 

I can see that Pratt was probably miffed that someone else was 
doing, and succeeding at, what he should have handled himself. We 
had to go about it as though he did not exist. Rex Black had the 
same experience with him. I had nothing to gain for myself; in 
fact, it hurt my status at the University. 

If Chapman had been smarter, he would have investigated the ad 
ministration of state forestry. Because of his interference, we 
were saddled with a weak State Forester for another eight or ten 

hL_ H^_ Chapman 

Fry: Do you remember very much about the way S.A.F. V ice-President Dana 
handled these charges against Chapman? 

Maunder: Let me explain this second investigation. A petition was brought 
to the Council from several members of the California section in 
December, 1935 December 12, 1935 and the Council agreed to grant 
a review of the Rex Black case. And the charges against Chapman in 
this case were signed by Swift Berry, R. A. Colgan, Clyde S. Martin, 
T. K. Oliver, and W. R. Schofield. 

Fry: The importance of both of these cases, particularly in the Chapman 
case, is that it was handled on two levels. One was the level of 
the actual charges and whether or not the party was guilty or not 
of unethical conduct, and then the other level was working out the 
procedure with which the Society could deal with problems like this. 
So you might have some comments on the way these procedures finally 
were worked out. 

Fritz: It certainly points out that the bylaws o f the S.A.F. constitution 
were not fully clear about how these steps should be taken and that 
this probably had some influence on the amendment to the constitu 
tion later on. 

Fry: Yes. You notice that the petitioners were never identified in the 

Black case, and in the Chapman case, they did identify the petitioners, 






so apparently this is one change. 

(Reading notes from his files.) This Isn t right. This says that 
Chapman "defends countercharge that the U.S.F.S. men wanted Pratt 
retained since lumbermen wanted him fired. " That is not true. 
Forest Service man Kotok said he was "going to get him, 1 i.e., he 
was going to get Pratt. 

Now here is a day telegram from the Forest Service, dated December 
17, 1934, addressed to Governor Frank Merriam from S. B. Show, 
Regional Forester. "Statement at Saturday meeting of forestry 
board as reported in Sunday San Francisco Examiner that Forest 
Service believes Pratt unqualified is absolutely untrue. Federal 
relations with Pratt involving Jarge C.C.C. program and coopera 
tive protection work under CTarke-McNary law are entirely satisfac 
tory." That would seem to refute .... 

That s face-saving. I see another sentence here: "Chapman says 
that Berry intimated the opposite point of view." Well, I think 
Berry was right. 

I guess the Forest Service men didn t have much love for Black 

Fritz: No. Now that s what I wanted to come back to the reason I sym 
pathized with Berry and Colgan and Black and that particular group. 
My background is altogether different from that of most foresters. 
Mine was in the physical field and the Forest Service men were 
mostly in literary and biological fields. And the two were quite 
different. That is, they did make a man think a little differently, 
I think. That s the way it appears to me. 

As for the investigation, I really don t remember that he was made 
the "subject of an investigation. It s peculiar that I don t re 

Fry: I think perhaps you went off the Council right at that time, be 
cause you and Chapman were having some correspondence about your 
resignation from the Council then, and Chapman was saying that he 
wished you wouldn t resign because it would look as if you were 
resigning in a huff over the Black case. That was about April 
of I936/ 

Fritz: No, my resignation had nothing whatever to do with the Black case, 
although it just confirmed some of my fears over Chapman s manage 
ment of the Society. There were two reasons for my resignation. 
One was Chapman s lavish expenditure of the Society s funds and 
his domination of the Society s Washington office. And the second 
was the fact that I was put at a disadvantage at the University by 
spending so much time on so-called outside activities, desirable 
as they were in the interest of forestry. 

Fry: Well, there are some papers and letters that indicate that your 


Fry: participation would be all right as far as Dean Mulford was con 
cerned, and that It would actually be counted and Included .... 

Fritz: Perhaps. 

Fry: And that later you found out that this wasn t the case somehow. 

Fritz: The Dean of the College of Agriculture told me, "You take your 
chances when you take on a job like that." Yet, V ice-President 
Deutsch, of the University, one day gave a talk before a group of 
foresters and singled me out as having done a great deal and men 
tioned some of the things that I was doing. It struck me as 
rather odd because he was practically congratulating me for it, 
whi le in the School of Forestry, it wasn t accepted. 

Fry: So you decided to resign? 

Fritz: Membership on the S.A.F. Council, yes. 

Fry: If I can ask you one more question about this year of 1936 before 
we leave it there was a "Division of Private Foresters" in the 
process of forming in the S.A.F. You were the chairman of it, and 
you have an excellent file on it. I d I i ke to know more about 
this Division. I think you were the one who was actually doing 
all the work, the letter writing and so forth, to actually get 
this started. But apparently it didn t last very long. 

Fritz: I don t think I initiated the section, but I was in sympathy with 
it and helped it along because I was interested in the development 
of private forestry. I thought it was a good idea. It was in ac 
cordance with the S.A.F. constitution. 

Fry: Yes. They had another section called the education section. 

Fritz: Yes. And they had a grazing section. In a way, I was responsible 
for that grazing section. I think It was the first subject section. 
It was, I believe, in the late I920 s or early I930 s that subject 
sections were authorized. One day at an S.A.F. convention, C. L. 
Forsling asked me what I thought of setting up a new society for 
grazing managers. I said, "You shouldn t do that. Why not set up 
a section?" We had not long before that authorized subject sec 

That s how the grazing section came about. It got so big even 
tually, and it was indeed such a specialty, that they did form a 
separate society, the influential Society of American Range Manage 
ment. They now have their own magazine. 

Fry: So when this was first brought up, you thought that forming a 

section on private forestry was just another logical step. Do you 
remember how this first came about? This was in 1936, which appears 
to have been an extremely tumultuous year for S.A.F. 


Fritz: More and more men were going into private employ and they wanted 
to be sure that their interests were actually preserved or pro 
tected by the Society. Also they wanted to be known as private 
foresters, a distinct kind of a job: first of all, a tremendous 
selling job, a job of selling nut only to the board of directors 
of the company but to the employees in the woods. 

Well, many of the woods employees were against forestry because 
it meant that they had to change some of their methods. Some of 
the oid-timers didn t like change. They didn t like the idea of 
foresters on their woods operations, all of them youngsters and 
college graduates. In those days, there were mighty few college 
graduates in private forestry work. 

And also we had the job of working up the technique of practical 

forest management. That was true all over the country, the 
southern pine region, the western Douglas fir, western pine and 

redwood regions. I was not an employee of a lumber company, but 

I was interested in getting foresters into the woods and mills of 

private companies. They now exceed in numbers, or nearly so, the 

foresters in public forestry. 

H. H. Chapman was a strong supporter of having more foresters get 
into private employ. In the Thirties of course, there was not much 
room for a forester because none of the companies had money. But 
the larger companies did employ some. However, after the Second 
World War, they just flooded in without much help from the outside. 
The companies looked for woods foresters and for college-trained 
men interested in the mills, especially the seasoning of lumber. 

Fry: Well, you were the chairman of this Division, and it was officially 
formed in January. 

Fritz: Of what year? 

Fry: 1936. The same year that everything else happened. You had the 
Zon petition and a lot of other things. 

Fritz: It s a good thing all of them happened during the Depression when 
many things were much easier. 

Fry: Why? 

Fritz: For one thing, it was easier to travel around. The highways were 
almost blank. 

Fry: There were sixteen members enrolled when it was formed. 

Fritz: And I was the chairman? 

Fry: And you were chairman. 

Fritz: I don t remember that. 


Fry: I was wondering if the final fizzling out of this I don t really 
know what happened because it was after you resigned from the 
Council. But I was wondering if you had trouble with the Holy 
Twelve, who were around at the same time. 

Fritz: I would say that they were related. I think they were related 
because there was that agitation for public regulation; and the 
private foresters of course thought in terms of private enterprise, 
and they were going to defend that system. And they wanted people 
to know that they were just as good foresters as those in public 
employ, but that the job was different. I don t think that section 
is alive now, but it served its purpose. 

Fry: No, it didn t live very long. It ended quite soon after. 

Fritz: The western private foresters have the Western Forestry and Conserva 
tion Association, a marvelous organization. That is really dirt 

Fry: And that s completely outside the S.A.F. 

Fritz: Yes, but many western foresters are members of both. Many of its 
members are not trained foresters but they have strong and active 
interest in it. 

Fry: There was a lot of question at this time about whether the forma 
tion of this section would increase the schism that seemed to be 
developing within S.A.F. as a whole, and whether the proposed divi 
sion would be primarily a group for study and discussion or for 
economic and pol itical purposes. 

Fritz: There was probably a suspicion on the part of the public foresters 
that this would be used as a sort of political section to work in 
favor of the private enterprise system and against public ownership. 
Of course, that would always come up. But the idea was, as I re 
member now, to let the other foresters know that the private for 
ester has a place and has a different kind of a job, and that more 
foresters should get into private work. 

Fry: Well, I remember reading the minutes of your first meeting, and I 
wish you could have read these because it probably would have re 
called to you the whole attitude, as it was portrayed at that time, 
of the private foresters. The first meeting seemed to be very 

Fritz: Yes. I m sorry I did not have a chance to read it. 

Fry: 1 think you were anxious that it not go off on a tangent just to 
harangue at public forestry but that it .... 

Fritz: It s pretty hard to keep that down. Being a member of the faculty, 
of course I would get calls from many groups and sometimes they 
were alumni men in private work; or complete outsiders would come 


Fritz: to the office and we d chat, battle these things out. And some 
times a member of the Forest Service would come in to seek some 

Fry: Regarding private forestry. 

Fritz: Yes, and regarding something he might have heard. For example, 

when the tree farm program was started, about a year after its es 
tablishment in 1941, a Forest Service man came to my office and 
said: What about this tree farm system? Is that really on the 
up-and-up, or is it window dressing? He might not have used the 
same terms but that s what he meant. There was always that sus 
picion. If private industry wanted to do something, the Forest 
Service itself, its own people, would downgrade it when it should 
have helped. 

Fry: "Well, did you find this suspicion existed about your private for 
estry section? 

Fritz: Not that I recall. We met only once a year, at the annual conven 
tion of the S.A.F. It was a no-nonsense section. 

Fry: The private section met only once a year? 

Fritz: Yes. There was correspondence, of course. The private foresters 
couldn t sustain that section. There were so many sections that 
some of the private foresters preferred to attend other section 
meetings, for example, on the new developments on fire control, 
the new things on silviculture, new things in economics, and sta 
tistics, and so on. And furthermore, private foresters had, in the 
"West, the Western Forestry and" Conservation Association, which was 
oriented toward private operations. 

Fry: On-the-ground techniques. 

Fritz: On the ground, yes. It s a very effective organization. And it s 
effective not only for their own selfish interests but for inter 
ests that affect the public. And to help them do their own jobs 
better. In the southeast, they have the Pulpwood Conservation As 

Maunder: Yes. Henry Malsberger is head of it. 

Fritz: That s right. And then another man at Bogalusa .... 

Maunder: Bogalusa? Yes, he was the first head of it. You re thinking of 
Frank Hey ward. 

Fritz: Heyward, yes. I think he started it. So the southern pine private 
foresters had that to attend. And I would say it is as good for 
the east as Western Forestry is out here. 


Well, are you saying then that these organizations did exist for 


Fry: private foresters outside the S.A.F.? 

Irlt/: Not rt r > a substitute. Those organizations ;in<l thn 5. A. I . vjpplo- 
rnenl one another. Many foresters belong to one of theso two and 
the S.A.F. 

Fry: So then, what would have been the purpose of this one inside S.A.F.? 

Fritz: We thought the members of the S.A.F. should have a chance to get 

acquainted with private industry. The Western Forestry and Conserva 
tion Association is more than sixty years old. The southern or 
ganization is younger. Southern pine forestry boomed so rapidly. 

Fry: Could I just put in one more question here to wrap up this S.A.F. 
discussion, and then we can go into Chapman again. I have a note 
here that some people feared the schism might be increased by the 
formation of the Division of Private Foresters, and in particular, 
E. T. Allen and Philip Coolidge were mentioned. Do you remember 

Fritz: Yes. 

Fry: Well, what was their role there? 

Fritz: Coolidge was a private consulting forester. 

Fry: And he was helping you form this, I guess? 

Fritz: He probably did. He lived in Maine and I lived at the other end 
of the world. Who was the other? 

Fry: E. T. Al len. 

Fritz: E. T. Allen. He was not a forestry-trained man but he knew it as 

well as any of us. He was the first State Forester of California. 

He really made the Western Forestry and Conservation Association 

what it was at that time. A very, very able man. 

Fry: Do you remember if they were for the formation of this section? 

Fritz: Oh, I m sure they were. And if there s any suspicion about the 

motives of that section, it was on the part of public people and 

their cohorts. I think you ve got enough on Chapman. Why not 
let him rest in peace? 

Fry: But just as this private forestry section was forming, you felt 
that you had to resign from the Council because of the press of 
University duties. However, Chapman says it was such an awkward 
time for S.A.F. that he hated to see you resign then because the 
private forestry division was not yet set up, and he said that many 
would think you had quit in a huff over the way the Black case was 
being handled. (This was just before Chapman was charged with mis 
handling that case, and the report was not to be made to the Council 


Fry: for two months.) 

The state of S.A.F. at that time was that there was a discontented 
group led by Zon and Kellogg, and Chapman says that In April the 
private foresters had allowed tnelr ^eellngs to get the best of 
them at the Atlanta meeting, so he felt he needed you there. He 
was really trying to get you to postpone your resignation. 

Fritz: I was not at the Atlanta meeting. 
Maunder: Now about Chapman .... 

Fritz: Well, way back in 1951, Herman Chapman wrote me the nastiest letter 
I ever have received. It was a typically Chapmanesque, vindictive 
letter, intemperate and I ibelous. He sent a copy of that letter 
to the Forest Service with permission to distribute it. This it 
did and thereby became a party to the libel. 

I wrote a reply at once, but I was advised not to mail it and to 
let the matter die. I was also told that Chapman is irked more by 
being ignored than by being answered. Also, I felt that a new 
Chief Forester was coming on, and I didn t want to embarrass him. 
However, I did continue to toy with the idea of suing Chapman for 
libel. He has libeled others but to keep peace in the family, they 
never did anything about it. 

Some time after the statutory time for filing a libel action had 
expired, I decided that I should answer him just for the record 
because he made statements which were absolutely untrue. Chap 
man was the kind of man who accepted the word of the last one who 
gives him some negative gossip on an individual. Whether it s 
true or not the purveyor didn t care, but he knew that Chapman 
loved it and would magnify it. That letter of 1951 was so widelv 
distributed by the Forest Service that I got a number of comrients 
about it from friends who wanted to know why I didn t fight it. 

Maunder: Let me just follow this up a little bit. You did in 1951 address 
a ditto letter to all the regional foresters and directors in the 
Forest Service in which you said: "Gentlemen, Recently you re 
ceived from Dana Parkinson reference I. Information Special Ar 
ticles, I and E #676, copy of a letter written to me on August 20, 
1951, by Professor H. H. Chapman severely criticizing me for state 
ments I made in an article in Fortune a year earlier. Mr. Parkin 
son also attached to his covering letter a copy of a letter Chapman 
wrote to the editors of Fortune . I had originally intended to ig 
nore Chapman s letter but because of its broadcast distribution I 
feel I must answer it. 

"Out of about ninety received, Chapman s was the only letter to con 
demn the article or in any way criticize it. 

""Therefore I want to know what there is in the article that is not 
true or what is biased or what may be considered a deliberate effort 


Maunder: or attempt to discredit the Forest Horvlco. General statements 
are not helpful. I need pinpointed specific reference. Accord 
ingly I am enclosing two copies of the article, on one of which I 
should like to have your comment , and marginal notes, Interlinea 
tion or other form. Merely underlining would give me no idea of 
whether you agree or disagree. The other copy you may keep as a 
record of your comments." 

Now Emanuel, in response to that letter, which you distributed to 
the regional foresters and administrators of the U.S. Forest Ser 
vice, your notes here show that you received eleven replies out of 
twenty and these all follow pretty much the same tone in their 
content. And you note on the face of W. G. McGinness answer 
(McGinness being then the director of the Rocky Mountain Forest 
and Range Experiment Station), dated November 30, 1951, "All too 
much alike not to have been prompted as to tone and content by 

And indeed, all these eleven letters which are addressed to you 
from McGinness, Philip A. Briegleb, George M. Jemison, J. Robert 
Done, Edward P. Cliff, Charles A. Connaughton, C. J. Olson, W. F. 
Swingler, Clare Hendee, and C. R. Lind and P. D. Hanson all make 
essentially this comment: that they see no purpose in outlining 
to you their comments on the Fortune article in detail but indi 
cate that they feel that Chapman^ criticisms of the article are 
valid and the inaccuracies that he claims to be in your article 
are self-evident; that if you will come to visit the forest areas 
to which you refer in your article (that is, the U.S. Forest Ser 
vice lands), you will see first hand the conditions on the ground 
which refute what you say in your article. 

Now, what follow-up did you make? I would assume in the face of 
this, you might have been deterred from following up a course of 
action to sue for libel in 1951, would you not? 

Fritz: No, I think my hand was strengthened. If you read all those let 
ters carefully, you find that almost the same wording is used. I 
had sent a copy to Dana Parkinson also because he was a party to 
the libel and I wanted him to know what I was doing, which was a 
mistake. Apparently, he contacted the men whose names you mentioned 
as to the manner of reply. 

Maunder: Did you ever seek legal advice in this matter? 

Fritz: Yes. 

Maunder: Who was your legal counsel? 

Fritz: I talked it over with several friends in the legal profession. 

Maunder: Well, who were they? What were their names? 












If I remembered it right now, I wouldn t want to divulge it. 

Why not? 

There was nothing formal about it. 

What did they advise you? Did they advise you not to .... 

They warned me about the fact that when a man sues for libel, the 
other side can make him look worse and worse and worse, so he isn t 
ahead even if he wins the full judgment. It just shows how the 
people who read the stuff originally are not the ones who are read 
ing it now, so 
deal i ng with a 
not as my invention but he s been called that a number of times. 

there are no corrections in their minds. When you re 
man as vicious as Chapman I m using the term vicious 

Well, in any case, you decided at this time not to pursue a course 
of suing for libel. You did, however, seven years later on Decem 
ber 14, 1958, go back to Chapman with another long letter of four- 
plus, single-space, typewritten pages, criticizing him point by 
point and answering his letter that he had sent to you in 1951 
after the publication of your article. 

This is the one that you told us about, that you had decided not 
to mail and then, finally, you decided to. 

I would like to have ignored it, and I did ignore it for a long 
time; but at the same time, I thought I had an obligation there to 
bring this out into the open as to how Chapman tried to assassinate 
reputations. I wasn t the only one he tried that on. He tried it 
on some far more important men than I could ever be. 

Well, you throw some pretty hot shots at Chapman in this particular 
letter. You will recall that Chapman, in writing to you .... 

farther, I wish you would inquire or even search 
See if there is a copy of that letter in Chap 
man s file in the Yale Forest School library. 

Before you go any 
for it yourself. 

I ll do that when I go back. But Chapman, in his letter to you of 
August 20, 1951, criticizing your article, "Winning the Battle of 
Timber," says in the second paragraph: "Ever since we sat on top 
of San Francisco peak and you damned the Forest Service and Zon 
for double-crossing you on promotion, I feel that your attitude 
has not been what one would exactly describe free from bias. I 
have occasionally taken a crack at you for this but without much 
hope of eradicating it. I have however seen distinct signs of im 
provement with the passing years and which appears in some few 
spots in this article, but the overlay is still biased in my 

Then seven years later in December, 1958, you make direct reply to 


Maunder: that criticism by saying to him, under a paragraph labeled: I. 

Arizona, "You asked why bring up this ancient history? Certainly 
I was discouraged but it has no bearing on my action since, and 
when I decided after World War 1 to return to forestry, my year 
at Flagstaff could not have been better as to kind of work, the 
locality, and the man who was my immediate boss. You have forgot 
ten that it was you who first called my attention to a letter re 
ceived by the District Office at Washington while you were assis 
tant District Forester at Albuquerque, to the effect that if Fritz 
does not complain too much he should not be given the promotion. 

"As with me, you have stirred up the old feeling among others and 
you were not innocent of stirring up discord in the entire South 
west District. But now you claim credit for this or that after 
it was worked out. Even Pearson was dead only a short time when 
you claimed some credit that was his alone and none of yours." 

This raises a lot of questions about the accusations that are 
hurled back and forth between you two fellows, and perhaps you can 
clarify a few of these things. Do you want to look at that para 
graph in particular that you wrote to Chapman there? 

Fritz: I have the whole file there; it s very complete also an earlier 

letter that Chapman wrote me which was also on the basis of gossip, 
He accused me of trying to break down the S.A.F., which was farth 
est from my thoughts because I was one of those who was helping to 
build it up and strengthen it. He accused me of being the Insti 
gator of the formation of a new forestry society in the Northwest, 
where a considerable group in Seattle felt it was treated as a 
stepchi Id. 

I was at that time a member of the Council and Chapman was presi 
dent. The truth of the matter is that I actually recommended to 
them not to start a new society (I think they were going to call 
it the Institute of Professional Foresters) in competition with 
the S.A.F., but to set up a local section. We are authorized in 
our constitution to do that, and this dissident group in Seattle 
did not like to be tied in with the Columbia River Section. They 
thought they were not given due notice. 

So I recommended to them that they set up a section within the 
Society. As you know, we have twenty or more such sections at 
the present time. They re an element of strength. (I was one of 
those who helped launch the idea of the present subject sections. 
Geographic sections were already provided for.) 

Maunder: Who made up this dissident group in Seattle? 

Fritz: I d rather not say. It s all on record; it s in my correspondence 
and also in correspondence with Chapman. You can look it up there. 

Maunder: Was it to be called a Seattle Section, or what? 


Fritz: The society they wanted to set up was to be called the Institute 
of Professional Foresters, as I recall it. 

Maunder: The concept was that this was not to be Independent of the Society 
of American Foresters? 

Fritz: Oh yes, it was to be Independent of the S.A.F., and a competitor. 

They felt that the Society was not giving due attention to practic 
ing foresters in private employ. They were doing a great job of 
promoting forestry right on the ground. I don t know that Colonel 
Greeley had a hand in it, but I think he would have supported those 
men not in setting up a new society but certainly for setting up 
a new section. And they did set up such a section. 

Maunder: And Chapman accused you of being the instigator of this movement? 

Fritz: I must say that Chapman, when he finally got the truth of it, sent 
me a letter in which he said he was i ncor rect I y i nf ormed . Now 
that s evidence that Chapman is easily influenced by gossip. It 
was another instance of gossip that sparked his letter of August 
20, 1951, which pertained to the Fortune article. Chapman accused 
me of trying to break down the U.S. Forest Service when actually, 
I had defended the Forest Service whenever private lumbermen at 
tacked it. They had plenty of good grounds but they also had some 
poor grounds for attacks. 

Chapman was a peculiar person. He breathed fire and brimstone. 
He loved a fight and was easily duped Into one. I had been criti 
cal of the U.S.F.S. when it was so heavily charged with socialism. 
The Forest Service, in those days, could not stomach anyone who 
was critical of it. They were a law unto themselves and they were 
hell-bent to assert their power some day and didn t want to be in 
terfered with. My sentiments were probably influenced by the high 
handed top brass in San Francisco and Washington. 

Maunder: It s quite obvious that there s a good deal of politics within 
professional forestry, as there is within all other professions 
and their official groups. 

Fritz: Yes, and I don t think you ll ever be free of it. It s just 
human nature. 

Maunder: Do you think this situation has improved any in recent years? Is 
there greater harmony now than before in the ranks of foresters, 
or does the dissent still go on? 

Fritz: I think the dissent is much milder and on a more informed basis, 
but it s still there. Private foresters are multiplying. The 
younger foresters are not interested In the polemics of the Chap 
man and Pinchot era. 

The Society has set up a new magazine known as Forest Science. 


Fritz: This has very definitely, I think, weakened the Journal of Forestry, 
although it has strengthened the Society i tse I f .""The new~magaz i he 
offers an outlet for the writings of the new breed of investigators 
and scientists. Then of course, the formation of the Forest Pro 
ducts Research Society had an enlightening Influence on the Society 
of American Foresters for having ignored a very important branch of 
the American foresters field. 

Maunder: Has this Research Society in a sense provided the answer to the 
feeling of the dissident group up in Seattle of which you spoke 
earl ier? 

Fritz: The problem you are referring to was resolved by setting up the 
Seattle Section. There was no relation to the F.P.R.S. This 
Society came later and has done amazingly well. It is concerned 
only with wood and not the forests. 1 am a charter member but have 
never taken an active part in it, even though it was right in my 
teaching field wood technology and products manufacturing. It is 
still young and vigorous. 

Its success I think is due to the fact that wood is something one 
can touch and handle. One doesn t pontificate about it. The 
prime mover in setting up the F.P.R.S. was Bror Grondal, of the 
University of Washington, and one of the top men in wood technology. 

I don t know why the average forester sticks to the trees and leaves 
consideration of wood to wood technologists, lumbermen, and wood 
products men. The great Forest Products Laboratory at Madison, 
Wisconsin, pioneered wood research on a comprehensive scale. For 
tunately, some of our students develop a preference for work on 
wood while others prefer the forest. The work of the Madison 
Lab has been so helpful to the wood industries that a demand for 
trained men developed. One now finds a forest school graduate who 
majored in wood technology in many wood products factories, from 
lead pencils to pianos, furniture, and timber structures. 

Coming back to your question: I think it was timely and very 
necessary to set up the F.P.R.S. The Journal of Forestry couldn t 
begin to handle the torrent of reports, and such, coming from the 
wood men . 



Maunder: Emanuel, you had a lot of Interesting experiences In your life 

with the Society of American Foresters and at lunch you were tell 
ing me a few of these. I wish you d just kind of review in parti 
cular when you were working for the Department of the Interior. 
When was this? 

Fritz: That was in 1938, October I to December 31. 

Maunder: Tel! us a little bit about how you came to that job and what were 
some of the experiences you had in it. 

Fritz: I knew nothing about it until I received the invitation. It came 
at a time when I was incapacitated because of a broken leg. I was 
in a cast and couldn t go out in the woods. At the time, I was 
getting things in shape for installing the selective cutting sys 
tem in the redwoods. 

At the Department of Interior in Washington, D.C. , I was to assemble 
what information I could find in the files or in the library, on the 
early days of the Interior Department, facts that concerned for 
estry, timber management, give-away programs and so on. 

Maunder: And who in the Interior Department called upon you to do this? 

Fritz: Lee S. Muck. He was the Washington Chief of the Indian forests and 
the Oregon and California land grant properties that were repos 
sessed by the government. 

Maunder: I see, but you were going to do this history not just for the 
Indian Service but for the whole Department of the Interior? 

Fritz: Right. 

Maunder: So it must have had the blessing of the Secretary of the Interior, 
who was then Harold Ickes, right? 

Fritz: It did. 

wasn t just a 

Ickes wanted it to be known that the Interior Department 
lot of chair-warmers doing nothing, that they had a 
conservation job also, and that while some of the history of the 
past may have been bad, it wasn t all bad. He directed Lee Muck 
to head up the study of what had happened in the past and what the 

& C (Oregon and California controverted railroad lands) people, 
the Indian Service, and the other branches of the Interior Depart 
ment that deal with timber, vefe do i ng as to conservation. 

Lee asked me i f I would come to Washington for three months to help 
on that. He had already had John II lick of Syracuse do one chapter. 

1 think the I I lick chapter was on the & C administration. I worked 








three months and then was ready to go home. During that time, I 
was on the payroll as a consultant to the Secretary, Harold Ickes. 
All the Hme I was there, I never met the man. I never even saw 
him, but I heard a lot of tales that trickled down through the 
Department of the day s events in h s office. 

What for example do you recall of that? 

Well, for instance, a lawn in front of his new Interior building was 
freshly seeded and the grass was coming up nicely. One day he saw 
a man walk diagonally across that newly seeded plot. He telephoned 
the Interior police department downstairs in the basement and or 
dered them to arrest the man. Small stuff. 

Well, how was your appointment to a job in Interior looked upon by 
some of your cohorts out here who were highly anti-Interior in 
their orientation? After all, the Forest Service was having a 
knockdown-dragout battle with the Interior Department over being 
transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department 
of Interior, weren t they? 

The reorganization F.D.R. carried it on, or tried to. 
no transfer. 

There was 

And Secretaries Ickes and Wallace (of Agriculture) had quite a 
battle on that. 

Yes, 1 believe they did. 

There were sti 1 1 rather some sore heads for years 
I wonder how was your working for Interior looked 
colleagues in forestry out here. 

after that, and 
upon by your 

Well, I personally didn t like the Idea of working for Interior 
because I knew it would classify me as having turned face, which 
I didn t. I could talk freely because I f igured, he I I , they could 
fire me and it wouldn t make any difference. 

I had it from several good friends in the Forest Service who asked, 
"How are you getting along with reorganization?" Questions like 
that. They assumed we were working on a plan of reorganization, but 

it had absolutely nothing to do with 
only case. 

my job. And that wasn t the 

While I was there, some few papers were shown me by Lee Muck to 
look over for comments. One was a manuscript of a proposed pam 
phlet written by a professional writer. I can t think of his name 
now, and I don t even remember the title of the publication when 
it was finally printed. But it was a damnation of the Forest Ser 
vice and a glorification of the Interior Department. I spent sev 
eral days on it. I wrote comments which, in my longhand, covered 
more than eight pages. The manuscript was full of errors and poor 
generalizations. I remember on the first page there was a statement 


Fritz: in which the word hate was used. I think it was "Inordinate hate" 
between the U.S.F.S. and N.P.S. I didn t like it because there 
was no hate among the foresters of the two departments down in the 
ranks. They got along in a friendly way. If there was any, it 
was at the top. However, there was plenty of disagreement and 

I don t know what Ickes personal plan was, or Roosevelt s, but 
I felt that there should be a brand new department, one to be called 
the Department of Natural Resources, or some similar title, and that 
the Forest Service would be the principal bureau, the Oregon and 
California Land Grant Administration would be merged with the 
U.S.F.S., and the Park Service would keep its name. There would 
be a combination of those units that belonged together and needed 
the same kind of management. 

The bookkeeping, of course, would be more complicated because of 
the different setups as to in-lieu payments to the counties. Any 
one who did not support a one hundred percent retention of the For 
est Service in the Agriculture Department was an enemy and natu 
rally, I was treated as such. One has to expect that. 

S.A.F. Revolt: Chapman vs. Interior Foresters 

Fritz: It happened about that time that things got pretty warm, especially 
in the S.A.F. offices and apparently also in the Forest Service of 
fices. H. H. Chapman, who was generally looked upon as the hatchet 
man for the Forest Service, started a new attack on the Interior 
Department. This time, he ridiculed the Department s foresters and 
accused them of disloyalty to the forestry profession, such accusa 
tions, as I recall them, that they are "gutless," and "woTT^ stand 
up for their personnel," and so on. 

The letter (I think there s a copy in my Interior file ) in some way 
got to the Interior Department. Lee Muck came into my office and 
threw it on my desk. He was probably still quite angry when he 
said, "Read that." As I read it, I was astounded at the vicious- 
ness of Chapman s attack. So I thought to myself that it s just 
about time that Chapman be brought to book. 

I don t know whether you ever met Chapman, but he was suspicious of 
everyone else. He loved to fight and it was very easy to plant a 
rumor in his mind where it would grow. I think that whatever it 
was that caused him to write such a letter, it was started off as 
a rumor. 

Anyway, I asked Lee Muck if he s going to take It lying down. And 
he said something like, "Well, what can I do." I said, "I think 
there s one thing you can do. Call Chapman s bluff. You can 
threaten to resign from the S.A.F., not you alone, but everybody 
in your local office and out in the field who is a member of the 


Fritz: S.A.F." 

He finally suggested that I write a petition. I wrote something 
like this: that we foresters ~\ the Interior Department had the 
same kind of training as the foresters in the Forest Service; some 
of us came from the same schools, had the same curriculum, same 
professors. We had the same principles, we had the same ideas of 
what forestry should be in the field, and we were getting awfully 
tired of being criticized at every turn because the top men hate 
each other. 





file on this in my file cases, you can read the 
That petition was mailed out at Lee s expense and 

If you found a 

exact wording. 

my expense to all the men in the field who had a forestry training 

and who were members of the S.A.F. Out of the seventy-five or 

eighty such men, about sixty-five or seventy returned their peti 

tions signed with some additional comments. 

Was this reported in the Journa I ? 

I don t recall. It should have been if it wasn t. 

Do you have a copy of that 
upshot of this petition? 

in your files? Well, what was the 

Consult my Interior file. The men in the field were pretty angry 
over the charges and signed the petition very promptly, whereupon 
Lee Muck submitted it to the Society. Then things began to pop. 
Chapman very suddenly got very, very quiet; he was quite disturbed. 
The S.A.F. couldn t afford in the Thirties to lose sixty-five or 
seventy members, even though at that time I think the fee was only 
five dollars a head. And it would smell bad outside. 

It was getting late and the Society was to have its convention in 
Columbus, Ohio, Christmas week. My tour of duty in the Interior 
Department would be over then. I discovered that I was due, I 
think, a week s vacation for the three months I spent in Washing 
ton, which I never had expected because I was there only for three 
months. So then I asked Lee Muck if he thought it would do any 
good if I should stop in Columbus on my way home. (I probablv 
would have done it anyway because I always attended meetings of 
S.A.F. when I possibly could.) He agreed and added he would try 
to get an N.P.S. forester there to help. (I m speaking to you 
only from memory. Some of the details may not be quite right but 
in general I think it is the correct history of the whole thing.) 

I told Lee that I couldn t represent the Interior Department be 
cause I was not a regular payroll member. He said, "All right. 
We ll have somebody represent us." He got a National Park Service 
man, a very good man, to represent the Interior Department for 
esters. There were a couple of other Interior Department men at 
the convention. 


Fritz: In Columbus, Korstlan, the S.A.F. president, came to me and said, 
"Fritz, the Council !s going to meet at a certain hour to discuss 
this Chapman letter and the Interior foresters petition. I d like 
to have you come up because you were there in the office, and you 
must know something about It." 

They were aware that I must know something about it by that time, 
but not that I d initiated it. I was going on the premise that when 
you have a good case, you don t have to make a lot of excuses for 
it and argue a lot. 

At the Council meeting, they really took the matter seriously. The 
president opened the discussion. He asked if I wouldn t say some 
thing about it as far as I knew it. I tried to tell the Council 
as briefly as 1 could that the Interior men are good men and they re 
just as good men as there are in the Forest Service. They have the 
same kind of training, the same kind of principles, and the same 
kind of attitude toward forestry. They re not being treated ac 
cordingly, and I know how they feel about it. They really mean to 
resign from the Society if something isn t done to correct It. 

Then the N.P.S. ma/i was asked to speak. I had never met him before 
but I knew about him. The Council members then agreed something 
had to be done. The president thereupon wrote a letter to Lee 
Muck to pass the word out to those members who were threatening 
to resign. I hope my recollection is correct on this. It has 
been a long time ago. 

Maunder: You were not then a member of the Council? 
Fritz: No. 

Pi nchot s Tour J_n_ the West Purl ng the Transfer Controversy 

Fry: Speaking of the transfer controversy, in which Harold Ickes wanted 
to create a federal department of conservation and transfer the 
Forest Service to it, you mentioned to me when the tape recorder 
was turned off that you managed to join a tour that Gifford Pin- 
chot was making in the West, as a part of the transfer controversy. 
How did you get wind of the fact that Pinchot was coming out here 
and get in on the tour? 

Fritz: Yes, I did join such a tour in Humboldt County. A Forest Service 
party was escorting Gifford Pinchot through the redwoods. I knew 
that G. P. was on a national tour, escorted by U.S.F.S. men, but 
did not know his California schedule. I learned about it while I 
was in Eureka as advisor to the redwood industry to find out how 
redwood logging could be improved as to preserving a residual stand, 
That must have been in the summer of 1934. I always suspected such 
tours. They generally foretold a new blast of publicity favoring 


Fritz: federal regulation, through the U.S.F.S., of private logging 

methods, and opposing reorganization of federal land management 
bureaus . 

The personnel of the Forest Service and several Interior Depart 
ment bureaus had been ordered to refrain from taking sides in pub 
lic. But there are ways of circumventing such an order. President 
Roosevelt was intent on joining in some way the national forest, 
park, and some other bureaus in one new department. Secretary 
Harold Ickes wanted the national forests transferred to his Interior 
Department. The U.S.F.S. of course opposed it and needed outside 
help, inasmuch as its voice was sealed by the presidential order. 
At the same time, the U.S.F.S. was batting for legislation giving 
it power to regulate private logging. 

In some way, Gifford Pinchot was inveigled to carry the burden of 
enlisting public support for regulation and in opposition to the 
transfer of national forests to Interior. 

I had interested myself in both matters. I favored the establish 
ment of an entirely new department, to be known as the Department of 
Natural Resources, and to be the management agency for the protec 
tion and business aspects of public lands, grazing, logging, re 
creation and wildlife. I wrote two articles for the Journal of 
Forestry on reorganization.* Incidentally, the 1946 article won 
me a prize of $100 for the best article of the year in the Journal 
of Forestry. It also won me the accusation of trying to wreck the 
ITS . F. S . 

I believe reorganization must come some day. It is not logical 
for two separate departments to be engaged in forest manager-ient 
on adjoining lands. Furthermore, the sale of stumpage is a busi 
ness undertaking and should be handled on a strictly business basis. 
The new department, I felt, should be a business management agency 
rather than a service agency as is the Department of Agriculture 
in large part. 

It is unfortunate that the two departments should be fighting one 
another. I think the U.S.F.S. muffed a grand opportunity to be In 
a new department. Its strong unity and high standards could have 
led and made a model new federal department. As long as the same 
activities are spread over two departments, there will continue to 
be jealousies and strife. The Interior Department, after its for 
est, grazing and wildlife bureaus were transferred to the new De 
partment of Natural Resources, would continue in charge of the other 
bureaus not concerned with replaceable natural resources. 

*"A Plea For a Fair Appraisal of Federal Forestry Reorganiza 
tion," Vol. 36, pp. 271-275, March, 1938; and later, "A Proposal 
For Reorgani zlzing and Realigning Federal Forest, Park and Game 
Lands," Vol. 44, pp. 278-281, April, 1946. 


Fritz: Well, returning to your question: Having heard of the U.S.F.S.- 
escorted PInchot tour, I decided to try to Join it, but no out 
siders were wanted. However, It was a public party, complete with 
its own press agent, and It is hard to keep out anyone with legiti 
mate business in a locality. I met the party In or near Crescent 
City on its way south from Portland. 

In the past, there was a pattern to these U.S.F.S. -escorted tours. 
This present tour followed the pattern. PInchot was given the usual 
treatment a schedule of stops wherever a logging job looked bad 
so one might deduce the need for federal (U.S.F.S.) regulation of 
private lumbering. No attention was paid to natural reforestation. 

It happened that at one stop a slack line yarding job was viewed. 
Being fairly fresh, it did indeed look bad, very bad. All logging 
jobs look bad for a few years. At this spot, the manager had or 
dered his logging boss to carry out some suggestions I had made 
by which a number of seed trees would be left in spite of the slack- 
line system. The foreman did a good job. But to Pinchot it was 
explained that this was an example of the redwood industry having 
no intention of improving its logging methods or abiding by Article 
X. It was very unfair and my effort to interrupt with an explana 
tion of the experiment (over one hundred acres) was cut short. The 
ubiquitous public relations officers saw to it at the end of the 
day that the local press got a good story on the Pinchot visit. 

It was quite clear that public ownership, or public regulation, or 
both, and opposition to reorganization were paramount, the former 
being the ostensible purpose of the tour and the latter, the main 
reason. The method of logging they viewed and the natural regen 
eration that followed without aid was secondary to giving a bureau 
more power. 

Fry: Were those who opposed reorganization in the Forest Service? 

Fritz: Most of them were. But there were many outside the Service, too. 
Even some lumbermen opposed reorganization, believing it to be 
good to have two federal agencies competing with one another. 

The U.S.F.S. personnel was quieted by "presidential" order, but it 
had followers who could be depended on to "carry a spear." One in 
particular was H. H. Chapman, of Yale University. He was the 
hatchet man for the U.S.F.S. He would go into action on the slight 
est suggestion. Even a rumor would take root quickly and be prolif 
erated into an issue. 

Fry: Was Chapman close to Assistant Chief Earle Clapp, or Chief F. A. 
Si I cox, or someone like that who headed up the fight for the For 
est Service? 

Fritz: Chapman was close to each one as long as he held the same views 

as Chapman. He could support a man vigorously on an issue one day 
and attack him viciously the next day on another issue. 


Fritz: Clapp was not popular as Acting Chief of the U.S.F.S. after Sil- 

cox death. Clapp might not be a socialist in the pattern of Norman 
Thomas, the perennial candidate for president, but he believed all 
forest lands should be owned by the federal government, or else that 
the U.S.F.S. should have power to c ! rtate matters of policy and 
methods for private lands. He tried at one time (1940) to dictate 
policy to the forestry school faculties. Chapman attacked him on 

Clapp was also suspected in rewriting parts of the Copeland Report, 
to make it agree with his own views. Several of the chapter authors 
were indignant over this, but could not publicly attack their chief. 

Fry: I gather someone must have complained about this to you. 

Fritz: I often learned about some things from others who felt that, being 
a professor, I had more liberty and privilege than they had. But 
sometimes someone tried to make me the goat. That was easily 



Legislation Attempts For Acquisition of_ Cutover Lands ( 1943) 

Fry: If you are ready to discuss the California Forest Practice Act, 
you can start by telling how you first got interested in legis 
lation for a forest practice act. 

Fritz: Actually, it started with an idea about state forests. In Novem 
ber of 1942, I attended a meeting of the State Board of Forestry 
held on the campus in Gianni ni Hall. I was there only as an ob 
server and because it was so handy, being right in the same build 
ing in which I had my office. I attended more or less out of curi 
osity. But I was thoroughly disgusted with the way the Board ran 
Its meeting, or I should say, the way the State Board, the State 
Division of Forestry Office and the Department of Natural Resources 

The Deputy Director of Natural Resources was present, to talk to 
the Forestry Board on what had been accomplished and what was be 
ing planned. This man I think It was Mr. Marsh upon being ques 
tioned on a certain topic, replied, "We re going to do this and 
do that." I don t recall the subject or its nature or his exact 

One of the Board members, Rod MacArthur, a rancher from Modoc 
County and a direct and very forthright sort of a man, asked the 
Deputy Director a question something like this: "Suppose the Board 
doesn t approve of what you re going to do, what will you do then?" 

He said, "We ll do it anyway." 


Rod MacArthur bristled at that and threatened to resign. It was 
plain that the Board was being side-tracked. 

So I decided that I would take an interest hereafter in the State 
Board of Forestry and in the State Forester s office. Theretofore, 
I had had only a casual interest in it because my university work 
was not directly in forestry but in the engineering phase of the 
manufacture of lumber and lumber products, plus wood technology. 
Nevertheless, I had a deep interest In forestry and its profession. 

At the same meeting, as I recall it, there was a discussion of the 
cutover lands not being as productive as they should be, and I 
conceived the idea that we ought to have a system of state forests 
for the purpose of trying out reforestation methods and restoring 
productivity on the several million acres of non-reproducing cut- 
over lands. 

Fry: After this discussion then of cutover lands, you got the idea of 


Fry: the state buying up cutover lands for state forests? 

Fritz: Yes. To bring it to a head, I decided that the thing to do was 
to offer a bill providing for the acquisition of cutover lands 
and the reforestation of these land^ by the state. 

At that time, some of my friends, when they heard about It, thought 
It was queer that I , as a supporter of the private enterprise sys 
tem, would even initiate or support anything like state ownership 
of land for the practice of forestry. It was indeed contrary to 
my philosophy of government. 

But my reason was this: The owners had little or no interest in 
these lands for timber growing. They felt that when they were 
cut over they were through with them, but that they would hold 
onto them as long as they were in business. They felt, and I 
think they were honest about it, that one couldn t keep the lum 
ber industry alive perpetually by the practice of forestry. 

In the case of redwood, they felt that and they said it many 
times it takes one thousand years to mature a redwood. At that 
time, there still were very few lumbermen who believed it possible 
to handle forest trees as a crop. We foresters were not very smart 
salesmen of our product forestry. We antagonized forest land 
owners with ill-advised public utterances. 

Also, they were, nearly all of them, heavily in debt to mortgage 
and bond holders. They had to liquidate their forests to raise 
money to meet their debts. On the other hand, they could at least 
have investigated more thoroughly the possibility of operating on 
a sustained yield basis. As it was, they knew really very little 
about forests except how many board feet of old growth each acre 
wou Id yield. 

In a very few years, however, there came complete reversal. The 
World War II years pulled them out of debt and doubtless contri 
buted to the change. As you know, today they are committed to the 
practice of forestry, if it is only the planting and reseeding of 
cutover lands and letting nature take her course, or leaving seed 
trees. Some have, indeed, gone so far as to hire foresters. At 
present, they have many forestry school graduates on their payrolls. 

I wrote the bill soon after that Board meeting, and in December, 
1942, I inquired among friends as to which one of the senators or 
assemblymen I could interest to introduce the bill. The consensus 
was that Senator George Biggar of Covelo would be the man. Biggar 
had the reputation of being the "fall guy," you might say, for bills 
that the others didn t want to introduce. 

Fry: I wonder why that was? 

Fritz: Purely political. Forestry was not as popular as it might have 


Fritz: been. A legislator shuns bills that might bring him opposition. 

Fry: So you went to see George Biggar. And we might point out that he 
was from a forest county, wasn t he? Mendoclno? 

Fritz: Mendocino County, yes. He was born in the redwoods, although his 
home later was in Covelo out in Round Valley, where he had a con 
siderable pear orchard. 

Fry: What did he say? 

Fritz: I talked it over with him and showed him my bill. He read it and 
he said, "That s fine. I ll be very glad to introduce it and I ll 
get some of the others to join me as co-sponsors." 

He suggested that I show the bill to the legislative counsel. I 
can t think of his name but I found him to be a very fine man. He 
read the bill at once, was very complimentary about its purpose and 
style, and said, "It can be introduced just as it is." That gave 
me qu ite a I I ft. 

Fry: Had you managed to get the legal terminology in there properly? 
Fritz: I had read a lot of bills for style and form. 
Fry: I see. [Laughter] 

Fritz: Senator Biggar introduced the bill when the Legislature convened 

in January, 43. He had gotten Senators Edward Fletcher and Oliver 
Carter as co-sponsors. And then George Biggar got several assembly 
men, among them Jacob M. Leonard of Hoi lister and Paul Denny of 
Shasta County, to introduce a companion bill. So at least we had 
the bill in the hopper and designated S.B. 509, and became Chap. 
1086, Statutes of 1943. 

Fry: Do you remember any of the men in the Assembly who handled it? 

Fritz: I m not sure of all, but there were Paul Denny and Jake Leonard 

who showed much interest. It went before the usual committees and 
was treated very nicely. They made some suggestions for changes, 
and some changes I had suggested. It was wartime and my classes 
were very small. I was permitted to go to Sacramento whenever they 
requested me to be on hand. 

While it was under discussion, I could see where there were some 
failings in the bill, some omissions. When the lobbyists learned 
who was behind the bil I, they would come to me and say, "How about 
this? Why don t you put that in?" For example, the hunters, the 
sportsmen, they wanted to be sure that the state forests would not 
be closed to hunting. That was not mentioned in the bill, but it 
was historical that state forests and federal forests were always 
open to hunting and fishing. So it didn t hurt to put It in. 


Fritz: Then someone else had suggested that we d never get this past the 
county supervisors because it would mean the withdrawal of tax- 
pay I nq land. But I had been considering that and wondering how to 
handle it, and then decided that this was a good time to introduce 
a provision which I long felt snoulJ have been In all federal legis 
lation when the U.S. or state took over land. The provision would 
make the state forests acquired under this act pay taxes exactly 
the same and at the same rates as private owners. The actual word 
ing was ". . . . an amount equivalent to taxes levied by the county 
on similar lands similarly situated. 

So that at once wiped out a lot of opposition, as did the hunting 
paragraph. The act set a precedent applicable to lands taken over 
by the U.S. for forestry purposes. 

Fry: I assume that this was the Association of County Supervisors 
lobbyist who had talked to you about this. 

Fritz: Yes. Maybe I got the phraseology from him. 

Fry: They re a very strong lobby, one of the strongest in Sacramento. 

Fritz: I think the organization acts as a good brake, at other times, as 
a stimulus. The county supervisors are closest to the people. 

There was one other source of possible opposition that of the 
lumber industry. But I felt personally that they weren t going 
to oppose it. 

Fry: Would this have been the California Forest Protective Association? 

Fritz: It would have been through that Association. I had frequent con 
versations with its manager, who served also as lobbyist. 

Fry: And the California Redwoods Association? Was the C.F.P.A. lobby 
ist William R. Schofield? 

Fritz: No, Schofield came in later that year. It was Rex Black. The 
C.R.A. people learned about it through the C.F.P.A. Of course, 
having had a lot of contact with the lumber people because of my 
sawmill teaching and my private consulting work, I felt I knew 
exactly how they felt. So I decided there was no likelihood of 
difficulty from them. 

And furthermore, I had consulted each one as to what his company s 
plans were as to the use or disposition of the cutovers. With a 
few exceptions, they stated they would sel I to the State. (Later 
I made this into a supplement to the report to the Legislature, 
The Forest Situation in California, printed in 1945.) 

Unquestionably, Rex Black would report to his own people in C.F.P.A. 
which met regularly in San Francisco as to what s going on in 


Fritz: Sacramento. I was never told and I never asked what their discus 
sions were about, but I gathered that they would not oppose it. 
That meant there would be no opposition. 

When it came to the voting in the Legislature, there were many 
questions as to the real need and the cost, and rightly so. 
Frankly, I personally never expected them to pass the bill the 
first year of its introduction. And if they had passed it, I 
would have thought that they had acted too precipitately, that 
they should study it because it would eventually amount to a very 
sizable sum of money. 

Fry: Did your bill carry an appropriation for the acquisition of the 

Fritz: Yes, for at least $1,000,000. The bill covered about three or four 
pages and stated the purpose, how it would be executed and what 
would be done with the lands once they were acquired. The pur 
pose was to set up some research on reforestation and then restore 
the lands to full production. 

There was something in the back of my head which doesn t appear in 
the bill, but which I often talked about. It was my thought that 
once the State has these lands reforested and a new crop under 
way, that they would then be resold to private ownership with suit 
able safeguards, that they would be handled on the basis of con 
tinuity of production. 

Fry: But you didn t write this into the bill? 

Fritz: No. The bill wouldn t have gotten to first base if I had done that. 
I learned early that if you want to introduce a bill, first of all 
decide where your opposition will be, that is, after you have de 
cided what you want accomplished; and then face that opposition 
at once and directly, face to face, rather than through the news 
papers or through plastering the public with a lot of inflammatory 
propaganda. That makes the opposition mad. 

I talked with a number of people I just happened to be acquainted 
with and who I thought might oppose the bill representatives, as 
semblymen, and senators because they represented all the lumber 
industry, both pine region and redwood region. (At that time, I 
wasn t particularly interested in redwood alone as a specialty.) 

Fry: Did you talk with the California Redwood Association on this? 

Fritz: As a group, no. Only through Rex Black of C.F.P.A., who helped 
as much as he possibly could. 

I said earlier that I didn t expect them to pass this bill, but 

I expected them to show an interest in it so that the next time it would 

be introduced, it would have clear sailing. I did expect that one 


Fritz: paragraph would be preserved, a paragraph which provided for set 
ting up an interim legislative committee for the study of the for 
est situation in California. That carried originally an appropria 
tion of, I think, $50,000 for making this 2-year study. The Legis 
lature met only every other year in those days. When finally 
passed, the figure was reduced to $15,000. 

I could see that they were wiping out one paragraph after another 
until they got down to this one paragraph and that paragraph was 
actually preserved. But I learned something else from that as to 
how the Legislature operates. They had already stopped the clock 
they were running past their regular time and on a Friday morn 
ing I was up there and everything looked all right to me. 

I think it was that same evening I saw Rex Black in San Francisco 
at a meeting of private foresters, interested in cutting practices. 
And I asked Rex, "What do you think of the chance of passage of 
the paragraph that provides for a sum of money for the interim 
study?" And he said, "It s sure, it s definite, it ll be passed." 
He had come down from Sacramento feeling that everything that he 
was doing up there was all hunky dory. 

It was just like being out in the woods you can never tell i f or 
when a limb will fall on you, or the cliche about the slip between 
the cup and the lip. 

Early Saturday morning I returned to Sacramento by train, and my 
first port of call was the Director of Natural Resources, Mr. 
Bill Moore, who was an interim man at the time, merely acting. As 
I entered his office, he laughed and said, "You re coming at a bad 
time. Your bill was killed last night." 

I was overcome by surprise because I was sure that they would pass 
it. They had already whittled it down to $25,000 and there was also 
a move to whittle it down still farther to $15,000. So I asked who 
the Assemblyman was who killed it. (The Senate had already passed 
it; it was killed in the Assembly.) And he said it was Gardiner 
Johnson of my own district right here in Berkeley. 

I never talked very much with him when I was up there talking with 
legislators, but I thought he would be on my side. But he was the 
one who started the drive to kill the whole thing. So I called on 
him and he was very forthright and honest about it. He said, "Yes, 
I did it. I was assured by the State Forester that this was 
another scheme to get him out of his job." 

Fry: This was M. B. Pratt? 

Fritz: Pratt. Then I worked on Johnson. I said, "That s impossible. 

Pratt and I are good friends, even though I don t think he s the 
man for this job. He has not grown with it." 

We talked it over quite a bit and he said, "You come back at two, 


Fritz: and I ll see that you can talk to other Assemblymen who are in 
terested in this bill." 

One was Mike Burns of Eureka, and Mike was all for it anyway. 
Mike was a rough old Irishman but he made a very good legislator. 
So we talked and they decided that they didn t understand the 
background. I had no thought of any action on my_ part to get 
the State Forester out. I thought that he was a weak man for the 
job as it grew larger. But he was the State Forester, and we had 
to deal with him, although he gave me no support at all during 
all this work that I was doing. 

So at 2 PM, the Assembly reconvened, and the first man to get up 
was Gardiner Johnson, who asked that the vote to kill this bill 
of yesterday or the day before be expunged from the record and 
that the bill be reconsidered. They did that, and the mechanics 
of bringing a bill back began to rewind, but it was cumbersome. 
If you ve changed a single word, it has to go back to the printer, 
then he prints it with a corrected word, then it has to go back 
to the floor and through the whole routine again. 

It was getting late in the day and everything was going smoothly 
it was always aye, aye, aye, in the voting. They were to adjourn 
finally at 7 PM, and the last few hours, of course, things go very 
fast. So, a few hours before final adjournment for 1943, they 
passed that bill, S.B. 509. 

Fry: Had it already gone back again to the printer? 

Fritz: It had already gone back and forth several times, and then of course 
it s cumbersome and it takes a little time, but they work fast in 
the printer s office, so it wasn t more than an hour each time. The 
bill had been so often amended That only the paragraph providing 
for an interim study survived. 

That meant that we would have an interim committee made up of 
Senators and Assemblymen to go out and study the forest situation 
directly and report back to the Legislature in 1945. There was no 
body in the Legislature who knew anything at all about forestry or 
had any idea that lumbering in California could be made a permanent 
business. But some had real Interest. The Committee included 
Senators George Biggar and Oliver Carter and Assemblymen Jacob M. 
Leonard and Paul Denny. The chairman of the State Board of For 
estry was made a member also, William S. Rosecrans. 

Fry: And the Director of Natural Resources, General Warren T. Hannum? 

Fritz: He was an ex officio member, because of his job, but was regarded 
as a member. He made some wise suggestions. 

Fry: I have a note here that Carter and Denny were both from forest 


Fritz: Yes. They were both good men; Leonard was rather weak. He ap 
peared to be under the thumb of political bosses in his county. 

Fry: What county was he? 

Fritz: He was from Hoi lister, San Benito County. The others were inde 
pendent men; Senator Biggar had independent ideas but he could 
easily be changed. I soon learned that I had to keep my eye on 
him to see who was talking to him, because the last man to talk 
with him was the one who got his ear and whose statements sank 

Fry: I have a note here that Jacob Leonard of Hoi lister wanted a cut- 
over land acquisition program of one million dollars. 

Fritz: Yes, that was during the early discussions. 

Fry: That was during the discussions of this bill at this session you 
were talking about. So at any rate, he was a supporter of your 

Fritz: Yes. There was no reason why he should be against it. He saw a 
chance of selling the state a property that he was interested in. 

Fry: That he was interested in? 

Fritz: Through a realtor in Santa Cruz. The Committee had to have a man 
to head up the study, that is, a technical man. He would serve 
as a secretary or as a consultant. I learned that Jake Leonard 
had the realtor from Santa Cruz County in mind. There were some 
lands down there that he, the realtor, wanted to peddle. They 
were lands of the kind that foresters would consider last because 
they were such poor lands. 

Senator Biggar, the Committee chairman, had already asked me i f I 
would serve as the consultant of the Committee and to direct it. 
I said, "No, I can t do that. It will take too much time from the 
University." Also, I felt I could do more by being on the outside. 

But when I learned that Leonard wanted his own realtor friend in 
there as secretary or consultant, I could see at once that the pur 
pose of the bill would be badly wounded. So I promptly drove out 
to Covelo and called on George Biggar and told him that I had changed 
my mind about being consultant to this Committee. I could arrange 
my time in such a way that neither the University would suffer nor 
the Committee. I had already gotten approval from the dean to do 
the job . 

I told him that I not only would let the Committee reconsider me, 
but I now actually wanted the job, so that the purpose of the bill 
would always be kept uppermost through all the discussions. He 
bought that, and he put it over with the Committee; and I was made 
the forestry consultant of the Committee. From that point on, I 


Fritz: arranged field trips for the Committee, wrote the chairman s speeches, 
kept notes, wrote reports, handled the correspondence, and so forth. 

Fry: This would have been in the spr ng of 43, is that right? 

Fritz: Yes. Let s back up a little. There was a delay. The bill was 
not signed until June 8, 1943. Then it was some more months be 
fore they appointed the Committee I mentioned earlier and organ 
ized it. And it was during that organizational period that I said 
that I wanted to be the consultant. 

Consultant to_ the Legislative Forestry Study Committee ( The 
Biqqar Committee) 

c <- tz: It was not until 1944 that we got underway. We had a number of 
indoor meetings; and we had I think as many as nine field trios, 
beginning in April until November, 1944, with a few sessions with 
Biggar in February and March. 

Fry: Yes, I believe there were nine or ten. That was a lot of field 
trips. Why were there so many? 

Fritz: The conditions vary a great deal, from pine to redwood and to 

Douglas fir. There also was talk about watershed protection and 
providing for recreation. They always sound good in the news 
papers. As a matter of fact, I still maintain (and write about 
it) that if you practice good forestry, you can t do more for 
watershed protection and recreation than just that. 

Fry: In other words, you felt that these two issues were covered by 

the definition of good forestry. 

Fritz: Yes. Good forestry takes into consideration recreation and soil 

erosion and things of that kind, including provisions for camp 

site faci I ities. 

Fry: What did you do in the indoor meetings? 

Fritz: We held hearings. We had a meeting with the pine industry; we had 
another meeting for the redwood industry. These meetings were 
held, not in Sacramento or San Francisco, but out in the resource 
centers, like Eureka or Fresno or Oroville. We would have a field 
trip and an evening indoor hearing for local chambers of commerce, 
interested citizens and public officials. 

Then there was the political aspect. So we felt we had to meet 
also down in southern California. They have very few forests, but 
they have a real watershed and fire problem. So we met in Santa 
Barbara and also San Diego. Sometimes these field trips and the 
inside meetings would be on consecutive days. 


Fritz: Altogether we held seventeen public hearings and the Committee 

Itself made four additional field trips. These trips were so or 
ganized that the Committee would see good practices and bad prac 
tices, and they would see especially the cutover lands that were 
logged many years ago, which were not now productive. We had to 
have a lot of meetings in Sacramento, of course, too, as we d get 
more and more data and were preparing the report for publication 
in 1945. (There had been a big change in logging. In the pine 
region, the change came in the early I920 s. In the redwoods, it 
came In the middle 1930 s.) 

The Committee enjoyed these field trips, not only because they 
liked to get out in the open in different places, but because they 
learned more about the state s problems. We had good support from 
federal and state forestry offices and chambers of commerce. All 
helped to make hotel and meal reservations. For a wartime period, 
the trips went remarkably well, smoothly and pleasantly. 

Fry: And trip logistics were part of your job? 

Fritz: I had to make it my job. Our "secretary," stationed in Sacramento 
and a political employee, was of very little help until the report 
was ready for typing. The other typing was done by the Forestry 
School girls. All the trip arrangements were made by me, except 
the southern California tours which they felt were necessary for 
pol itica I reasons. 

Fry: In other words, you were free to decide on where they went and 
what forests they saw. 

Fritz: They could have checked me any time they wanted. But they were 
satisfied that what I was doing would be proper to carry out the 
purposes of the bill. 

Fry: What was your criterion for setting these up and selecting various 
sites for observation by the Committee? 

Fritz: I had seen much of California away from the public roads, so knew 

what was going on in the woods. The bill provided for the acquisi 
tion of cutover lands and their reforestation. We saw lands that 
were not -reforesting because of past fires or the method of log 
ging that was practiced at that time. 

I took them also to places like Big River in Mendocino County 
where there was a magnificent stand of second growth. That second 
growth was there because of good fire protection and the method of 
logging practiced in the early days. We also visited the fine 
second-growth pine areas in the Mother Lode country. 

Fry: This was redwood? 

Fritz: Redwood on Big River, and pine elsewhere. Many seed trees had 


Fritz: been left, and the area logged by each company each year was small. 
This permitted excellent natural reforestation. The same was true 
In the pine region areas logged In the early days. 

Fry: Your main purpose then was to give ihem an indication of what kinds 
of logging were actually going on, and then, in the case of the ones 
like Big River, what could be done with proper forestry techniques. 

Fritz: Not exactly. The main purpose was to show that there was a forest 
situation that needed recognition and action. We also had the 
human relations problem education of local officials and business 
people. We held one meeting for county supervisors of the redwood 
and pine regions. Most of them had only the most meager concept 
of the possibilities of forest management for permanence. 

Fry: The county supervisors? 

Fritz: Yes. And I ll never forget what a rancher in Mendocino County 

said: "You re all wrong; cutover land should be converted into 
grazing land." 

Fry: You mean that this was more or less the consensus of all the supei 
visors in the redwood and pine counties? 

Fritz: Not only most of the supervisors but the general public. I had 
the privilege of asking questions at these hearings. 

Fry: Before we go on, what was the reaction of your Committee to the 
suggestion that this be turned into grazing land? 

Fritz: The Committee would ask questions to bring out certain points. They 
had very little or no understanding at all except for two men per 
haps: Rosecrans, who knew something about conservation in general, 
although he was not a forester, and the other was a resident of 
Shasta pine country. 

Someone asked a pine county tax assessor who was there for the 
meeting, "Aren t you interested in this land being kept productive?" 
His answer was, "It ll take about a hundred years before you can 
get a crop, and I m not going to live that long, so why should I 
worry about it?" Those are not his exact words but that s the 
sense of his answer. He was interested only in today and his term 
in office. 

The redwood supervisor was, I think, quite honest in this belief 
that he did not believe that you could raise tree crops like you 
do grain crops, crop after crop. So I asked him, "Mr. X, how do 
you think the redwood lands should be handled?" And I ll give you 
his exact words: "I would cut them clean and then I would burn hell 
out of them and I d sow them to grass." 

Lambs and calves can be harvested every year, but the forest is 


Fritz: handicapped because of the long rotation. 

Fry: This was a different supervisor from the first one you told me 

Fritz: Yes, a different man, a redwood county supervisor; the pine man 
was an assessor. 

There is no quarrel with converting to grass but one should first 
assure himself that it can be done profitably and permanently. A 
lot of our pasture land in the United States was developed that 
way in the eastern, southern, and middle states. And some natu 
ral prairie land has been converted to grain land. Even some of 
our cities and truck farms are on what at one time was forest. 
But we also need lumber, veneer logs and pulpwood, and wooded 

Fry: At any rate, this didn t create any serious problem with the Com 
mittee, I take it. The Committee wasn t swayed by this sort of 

Fritz: No. All these meetings were held in 1944. Times were changing. 
Since then a great change, all for the better, has come about in 
the personnel of our county officials. Incidentally, about two 
months after our supervisors hearing, I met the redwood sheepman 
on the street. We were good friends. After a little bantering, 
he volunteered that he learned a lot at the hearing and that he 
was changing his attitude. 

We came to the end of the year 44, and the Legislature would go 
into session in January of 1945, so I had to have a report. I 
nearly dropped dead when I discovered that all the notes that I 
had kept on three-by-five cards had been mislaid. 

Fry: This was your card file of the hearings? 

Fritz: Yes, all the ideas that I had been going to put in the report. I 

just couldn t find them. So I locked myself into one of the vacant 
rooms on the campus in the forestry building, and got myself a tab 
let and started to write from memory. The legislators were al 
ready arriving so I wrote the report "backwards." I wrote first 
of al I a "thumbnail" sketch, which would be a sort of summary, a 
very skimpy summary, of the findings and recommendations. Ft 
covers less than one page in the report. About a week later. I 
wrote an extended" summary of the report. Each summary was 
printed and distributed to all the legislators. Each of them had 
a copy on his desk. Both are in the final report,* the thumbnail 

* The Forest Situation in California. Report to the Legisla 
ture by California Forestry Study, created by Chapter 1086, Statutes 
of 1943, State Printing Office, Sacramento, 1945. 189 pages. 


Fritz: sketch on page nine, and the extended summary on pages nine to 

eighteen. Then I wrote every day from morning till night with a 
lead pencil (I m not good on the typewriter) and completed it in 
about two weeks. 

On the report you ll find the name of Marguerite Bridges, as sec 
retary. Senator Biggar authorized her to come down to Berkeley 
to take dictation and do the typing on the report. I m no good 
at dictating, so I would dictate only ideas and elaborations and 
she would type the report as I finished the pages. In that way, 
we finished the report. 

Then of course, we had to hold meetings of the Committee right 
away to go over the report. The Committee really studied every 
word. We often sat up late. My personal annotated copy of the 
report will be turned over to the Bancroft Library. 

Fry: Is the map in all the copies of the report? 

Fritz: The map of certain solid blocks of cutover lands appears only 
in a separate printed supplement to the report, titled Forest 
Purchase Areas: Recommended For Further Investigation try the State 
Division of Forestry. It was distributed only to the Committee" 
members and some state officials. There were two printings. The 
first was hurried to the legislators without an index. The second 
had an extensive index bound in. 

Fry: Did you do the indexing? 

Fritz: Yes, all but the typing. I had a simple method that I used to 
use when I was editing the Journal of Forestry . This calls for 
indexing not only titles of paragraphs but significant words. The 
Table of Contents itself requires nearly three pages, the Index, 
ten pages. The extra labor of providing a good index is small 
compared with that on the main report, and it makes any book more 
useful. A book with a skimpy index is an abomination. 

Fry: What did the report recommend? 

Fritz: The principal recommendations were for establishing a system of 

state forests, passing a forest practices act, provision for stag 
gered terms of Board of Forestry members, and others. They appear 
on pages seventeen and eighteen of the report. 

Fry: Did you ever find your card file? 

Fritz: Not until after I was retired in 1954, nine years later. I was 

cleaning out some files and there, hidden In the back of a drawer, 
I found them. It was some time after 1 had noticed my files had 
been tampered with, I don t know why. But I did not want to take 
a chance on losing my card file. Hence, their hiding. 

In those days, I had a very good memory and could remember even 


Fritz: small details. Comparing my card file with the text of the report, 
I found that I had missed very little. 

The report, although I wrote it. must be regarded as the report 
of the Committee and is so described on the title page. It would 
carry more weight with the legislators. 

Fry: It s the report that you and Marguerite Bridges hammered out? 

Fritz: She had nothing to do with it except the typing. She was a pub 
lic employee hanger-on. No doubt there is a lot of that in every 
capital city. She went along on some trips but I couldn t get her 
to keep a note. 

Fry: Then the report was submitted to the Legislature. 

Fritz: Yes. Remember that the original bill of January, 1943, was solely 
for the purpose of acquiring lands for state forests. California 
was one of the few forestry states that had no state forest sys 
tem at that time. But in 45, as a result of this study, we did 
a lot of other things. We provided for a Forest Practices Act, 
we provided for insect control, better fire protection. We also 
recommended that the Committee be continued another two years. 

Of course, all of these recommendations had to be put in separate 
bills in 45. The governor signed them all. But no money for set 
ting up the state forest system was provided, only the authoriza 

Fry: You went on further study excursions the following interim year, 
didn t you? 

Fritz: Not I, the Committee did. The war was over and my campus duties 
increased as the enrollment boomed. 

Fry: Were you with the Committee then? 

Fritz: Sometimes, but I had accomplished my original purpose. George 

Craig became the consultant then. There were certain matters that 
warranted its continuance. These were pointed out in the 1945 

The Committee s report started the ball rolling for all the legis 
lation passed in 45. It included the resolution for the Interim 
Committee for 46. 

Fry: Yes, which had, I think, $5,000 less than your Committee had to 
work with, but they did essentially the same thing. They held 
hearings and they went around and visited various forest areas. 

Fritz: The first Biggar Committee had $15,000 for the study and printing. 
Its interests were directed mainly in other channels. I was one 


Fritz: of several who recommended George Craig to follow me; he was a 
very able young man, a graduate of U.C. in forestry. He did a 
very good job. They got out a printed report also, a very good 

Fry: George Craig is now head of the . . . ? 

Fritz: He s the executive head of Western Lumber Manufacturers, Inc., 
in San Francisco. 

Fry: What was George Craig at that time? 

Fritz: George was a wartime officer in the navy. I think he was dis 
charged in late 1945. The Committee job itself was a temporary one. 
These jobs are never permanent. 

Fry: You wrote your report in December of 1944 and early January, 1945, 
and it was presented to the Legislature in 1945. Did you have any 
personal contact with the Legislature then, or did you not go to 
Sacramento very much after that? 

Fritz: Yes, I did, mainly to go over the report with the Committee. After 
that, I was no longer the consultant of the Committee, but George 
Biggar or somebody else would ask me to come up. 

Fry: He would just ask you to come up to testify? 

Fritz: At committee hearings, yes, I attended those. You see, a Univer 
sity faculty member is not supposed to go to Sacramento at all, 
except if he is requested by an assemblyman or a senator. I was 
requested to go up there. (Of course, while I was working on this, 
I was the consultant; and that was cleared with the President s 
office. So I was in the clear in all that.). 

Fry: We haven t really rounded out that story. It sounds as if you 
turned in your report and then sort of vanished. I don t think 
that was true. 

Fritz: After this report was submitted, I was still asked to come to Sac 
ramento to discuss certain points with this or that man, I ve for 
gotten who, but quite a number all together. They were a large 
group except for special committees. 

During that time of course, this bill and others were in the lap 
of the Legislature. Bill Schofield^ manager of the California 
Forest Protective Association, handled the several bills pertain 
ing to forestry. Rex Black had resigned his job. 

*See William R. Schofield, Forestry , Lobbying, and Resource 
Legislation, typed transcript of a tape-recorded interview con^ 
ducted by Amelia Fry, University of California Bancroft Library, 
Oral History Office, (Berkeley, 1968). 


Fry: Schofield was the new lobbyist for the California Forest Protec 
tive Association? 

Fritz: Yes. Schofield looked after the bill whenever it was necessary. 
I would say that Schofield kept it -live. Schofield was not a 
newcomer to Sacramento. He had had a lot of experience with the 
Legislature because he had been with the State Board of Equali 
zation; his specialty there was forest taxation. He was a good 
selection for the C.F.P.A. job. 

Fry: What was the general reaction of these various groups we had talked 

Fritz: All favorab le. 

The Leg is I at ion 

Fritz: I might have misled you that I was through with the Committee in 

early 45. Actually, I was with it through the entire term of the 
Legislature in 45. Here s something you mustn t forget: I was 
one of the authors of the Forest Practice Act, aside from the State 
Forest Acquisition Act. It happened this way. 

I was still working with the Committee, and we had to have a bill 
for forest practices; and I had heard that the state of Maryland 
had written one which was considered by the U.S. Forest Service 
as a good one. So I felt that if the U.S.F.S. thought it a good 
bill and if it fits our situation here, why not pattern ours 
after the Maryland bi I I? 

That would do two things: it would give us a running start on a 
good bill, and it would also obviate criticism from the U.S. For 
est Service, which is very good at looking down the necks of for 
esters and lumbermen not in its own employ. It was very alert to 
any move that might rob it of a chance to control or regulate 
private lumbering and influence any activity by foresters not in 
i ts own emp I oy . 

There were also those of us in forestry who believed in the pri 
vate enterprise system. The U.S. Forest Service in those days was 
very socialistic, at least for forestry. Some were real socialists. 

Fry: So you felt that this would be good strategy and that you would 
have the support of the Forest Service? 

Fritz: Yes, so that if any legislator went to the Forest Service and 

asked about it, they d say, "Yes, it was patterned after the Mary 
land Act." That was just a following out of my philosophy that on 
matters like this, you d better find out where your opposition is 
going to be. 


Fritz: The lumber industry, as far as I was concerned, was not consulted. 
I didn t consult the Industry for the bill, even though I was on a 
retainer with the California Redwood Association, hoping to get 
forestry out of the swivel chai 1 - and Into the woods. It was an 
entirely different venture from my forestry endeavor. It had 
nothing to do with the legislation. In fact, I think the lumber 
industry would have objected strenuously if I had engaged in in 
fluencing legislation under their name. I was not on their pay 
roll but just on a retainer or per diem basis. So I could be in 

Fry: I understand from Schofield that the lumber industry felt that 

some kind of forest practice legislation was inevitable, and they d 
better get the kind they wanted or they might have complete govern 
ment control of their operations. 

Fritz: He is probably correct. Like myself, Schofield was one of the for 
esters who was also a private enterpriser, and we couldn t see that 
the Forest Service should own and direct everything. 

If the Forest Service could dictate how a lumberman is going to 
cut his lands, when and where and how, then the government could 
also dictate to a farmer what crop he s going to plant and how 
he s going to do it and when he s going to harvest it, and so on. 
And that could lead to how we comb our hair and what kind of 
clothes we wear, and so on. I was against it. If any cutting 
laws are needed, they should be state laws. 

So I wrote to Maryland for several copies of the bill. After 
study, it looked to me like it would fit our situation, and I 
sent a copy to Bill Schofield. 

Incidentally, the Chief Forester of the United States had al 
ready written an article which was published in the Journal of 
Forestry, touting the Maryland Act as being a very good one,~o it 
gave us something to hang our hats on. 

Fry: This would have been Lyle Watts, right? What do you think of him? 

Fritz: One of the weakest chief foresters we ever had and the most 
social istic. 

When I got this copy, I had been working on a bill to fit the 
details of our situation here, using the Maryland law as a pat 
tern. I was pleased that before I had finished mine, Schofield 
had at the same time written a bill patterned after the Maryland 
Act. Of course, that was his job. Our bills were very much alike 
because both were patterned after the Maryland bill. It was for 
tuitous because Schofield, being the lobbyist for the lumber in 
dustry, could go to the pine and redwood people through the C.F.P.A. 
and have his bill cleared. They accepted his bill. 

We all felt that if the lumber industry didn t do something about 


Fritz: it, they d have something rammed down their throats, which none 

of us would like. Also I felt that somebody should take the ini 
tiative, and I felt also that the bill should contain nothing 
which would develop opposition in some corner where we wouldn t 
expect it. And Schofield would naturally do that because he knew 
what the timber industry would take or not take. It made me write 
into that bill only those things which I thought we could pass 
or have passed, but would improve cutting practices. 

So that s the way the two bills were written. Had Schofield or I 
followed a different course, the Legislature would have thrown the 
whole thing out. 

You have to remember this: that the lumber industry is very large 
as to the number of people in it. You have very large companies 
and you have a multiplicity of small ones. The large companies 
were doing some things they could have improved. In fact, that s 
what my job was for, as an advisor to the redwood industry: "What 
can we do to improve our logging, to make our plants permanent?" 

Now that s a pretty broad statement. And when you come down to 
the details, it has every kind of ramification. I knew what they 
were doing in the woods. In the ten years since Article X of the 
N.R.A., a decided change had been made in the woods. The good 
companies were already doing more than was required in a Maryland- 
type law. 

We were trying to catch the horde of fast-buck operators who In 
vaded the state during the war and were creating havoc in the woods. 
They also got into trouble with the Fish and Game Commission for 
blocking the streams. The Commission would attack not only these 
operators but the industry as a whole. Public agencies often "paint 
with a wide brush." It was a case of a blunderbuss instead of a 
rifle. Everybody got hit, the good and the bad. 

I didn t think that was fair to make big noises to the public where 
a reasonable operator was involved, when the cooperative approach 
would have done better. Also, I felt it was hurting my own efforts 
to get certain forestry practices into the woods. I was trying to 
get the selective cutting method established on a larger and more 
intensive scale. We couldn t write a specific si I vicu Itural method 
into the law because conditions varied from company to company and 
from region to region, because of terrain, site factors, conditions 
of the old growth, and even markets and equipment. The latter con-, 
trol how intensively one can utilize a tree once it is felled. 

So the bill was presented to the Biggar Committee, which was still 
in force. Then the Committee would go over the bill and would say, 
"The Legislature will never buy this," or "They ll never buy that." 
The result was that we had a Forest Practice Act which had the basic 
principles in it. 

After some small changes back and forth, the Biggar Committee 


Fritz: approved it, and it was introduced and became S.B. 637, bearing 

the names of Senators Biggar, Carter, and Fletcher. It was intro 
duced January 25, 1945. 

Fry: Why don t we insert right here what the major provisions were. I 
think I have them noted down here. 

The bill provided for a rules committee of timber owners and op 
erators in each region, one in the redwood region, one in the pine 
region, and so on. 

Fritz: The Forest Practice Act, as passed, was in large part a self- 
policing law. It recognized the differences in forest conditions 
and therefore divided the state into four districts. Each dis 
trict was given a committee of timberland owners and operators to 
write the rules of practices regarding cutting, protection, erosion 
control, reforestation, and so forth. 

It recognized the right of an owner to convert his land to another 
legitimate use, like grazing. (This part of the law was badly 
abused by the fast-buck operators and owners of small areas. Many 
owned only a quarter section, an effect of the old Homestead and 
the Timber and Stone Acts.) 

Also provided for was the privilege of alternative forestry prac 
tices to meet certain local conditions. All the rules of practice 
and their amendments, including variances, must be approved by the 
State Board of Forestry. 

Fry: I have here that "there were four major merchantable timber regions 
in the Forest Practice Act as it was delineated in 1945." 

Fritz: Yes, you re right. It s four. 

Fry: "7 . . . and a forest practfce committee of five, of which four were 
appointed by the governor. One was from the Division of Forestry. 
These men developed rules for logging, protection and regeneration. 
After the two-thirds vote approval of rules by the timber operators, 
they were then submitted for approval by the Board of Forestry and 
put into effect." 

Fry: Why was there no way to enforce any of this until later on, when 
it was amended and violation of the rules was made a misdemeanor 
in the mid-1950 s? 

Fritz: That s an interesting point. We had a meeting in 1945 of our in 
terim or Biggar Committee, and we were going over this bill. Scho- 
fleld s bill and my bill were gone over thoroughly. They were very 
similar, but there were some differences. One was the penalty in 
mine, while there was none in Schofield s. 

Fry: What was your penalty? Do you remember? 


Fritz: It was very, very small. 
Fry: A fine, or . . . . ? 

Fritz: It was a fine. In some versions ot the original bill oh, -here 
It is right here: $500. 

Fry: But Schofield s bill didn t have any method of enforcement? 

Fritz: Actually, a fine of $500 doesn t mean anything. Some disinterested 
logger could afford to pay the fine and keep going until another 
inspector happened by. There never have been enough inspectors. 

The Committee asked that the fine be taken out, believing that the 
important thing was the registration. That is, a man cannot oper 
ate unless he s registered. Withdrawal of registration is a very 
serious penalty. If you stop his logging operations for only one 
day, he loses much more than $500. 

The bill reads: "All timber operators engaged in cutting or re 
moval of timber or other forest products from forest lands for 
commercial purposes shall register with the State Forester to per 
form such operations. The fee for such registration shall be one 

Fry: But then, if registration carried no threat .... 

Fritz: Here it is: "Every timber operator who fails to register as pro 
vided for in this section shall be prohibited from cutting or re 
moving timber or other forest products for commercial purposes 
from forest lands." 

Fry: Yes. That s from S.B. 637. 

Fritz: Actually, that s a very serious penalty. He could be stopped by 
an injunction. 

Fry: It would require a court injunction; that is cumbersome. 
Fritz: Yes. Unfortunately, the courts are slow. 

You might be interested in how the two versions of a forest prac 
tice bill were resolved. As I said earlier, Schofield s bill and 
mine were very much alike but mine contained some ideas not in 
Schofield s and vice versa. The hour was getting fate, (C~or 
FT ~PM,"~so~we adjourned the Tormal meeting, but Senator Biggar, 
SchbTfeld and V were asked to go to the hotel and resolve the dif 
ferences. By I or 2 AM, we had the differences ironed out to 
Biggar s satisfaction. Schofield s bill had all the changes en 
tered, and having already been cleared by the possible opponents, 
the industry, it was accepted and mine was tabled. 

The next day the Committee okayed the revised text. Biggar later 


Fritz: had it drafted as a bill, and it became S.B. 637. The Legislature 
approved It and Governor Warren signed it on April 23, 1945. Thus 
it became Chapter 85, Statute 1945, and part of the Resources Code. 
Early in 1947, after the regional committees had completed draft 
ing the rules, the State Board of Korestry, upon due study, approved 
them and the law became effective. 

Fry: And then in the three-man meeting, what you did was adjust any 
differences and put them in Schofield s bill? 

Fritz: We were directed by the Committee, and all we had to do was add the 
verbiage. We made some other changes In English, of course, to 
make it read well. Schofield was satisfied and I was satisfied 
and Biggar was satisfied, so when we went back to the Committee 
the next day, they approved it and Biggar then introduced it to 
the Legislature. He had others sponsor the bill with him, Sena 
tors 01 iver Carter and Ed Fletcher. 

There was always a certain trio in forestry legislation Biggar, 
Carter and Fletcher. Fletcher came from San Diego and though not 
on the Committee, had some contact with timber through represent 
ing owners who were in financial difficulty, like the Ward Estate. 
Carter was an attorney In the pine region and Biggar came from the 
redwoods. All of them were quite interested in forestry. 

Oliver Carter was a senator for several terms. Then he was made 
a federal judge with headquarters in San Francisco. 

Ed Fletcher was a realtor in San Diego. He got in very early and 
made some of the biggest deals in southern California. In some 
way, he also got interested in the Ward Estate of Michigan, which 
owned extensive tracts of redwood in Del Norte County. They were 
unable to pay county taxes in the I930 s. To raise the necessary 
money, the Wards decided to sell part of their timber to the U.S. 
(This is now in the Redwood National Park controversy.) Uncle Sam 
is "broke" and he is doing, or would like to do, what the Wards 
did: trade their redwood forest to one of the owners in exchange 
for his timber which lies within the proposed park area. 

Fry: When this bill was introduced, was there much opposition from any 

Fritz: Very, very I ittle. 

Fry: We haven t discussed the provision in the bill to allow for con 
verting the specified land use of a tract from timber production 
to something else, such as grazing or agriculture. I understand 
that later on this was one of the loopholes that the State Board 
of Forestry was trying to plug up because timber operators could 
use it to enable them to clear-cut their property. Was this pro 
vision in your bill? 

Fritz: It probably was in both of our bills, my bill and Schofield s, 


Fritz: since they were both taken from the Maryland bill, and because 

Maryland as a state had a lot of forests which were scattered and 
in small units, land which couldn t be cultivated or used for some 
other purpose except housing developments. And I think it should 
be in there. I don t think you could get any kind of a forest 
practice bill passed without that provision because we have a lot 
of forest land in California which Is being crowded by rural de 
velopment; also, more land is required for grazing. 

For example, there are many livestock ranchers in the state that 
own anywhere from twenty to fifty thousand acres apiece. Part of 
their land is timbered and part is grass; and sometimes the tim 
ber encroaches on the grass, or has in the past, and they want 
that timber cut. They want and need grass. They certainly have 
the right to raise grass for their livestock. 

That has been a great fight in the past, but I think it s pretty 
well resolved now, or understood. Many small owners and contract 
loggers took unfair advantage of it, and the state I think was too 
wishy-washy about it; the state had not enough inspectors. The 
law should have provided for a time limit and a penalty that, if 
the logged area was not actually devoted to the new land use if 
he could not show proof that he actually seeded grass on it at so 
many pounds per acre, or that he put houses on it, or put the land 
to some higher use he would then have to reforest it at his own 
cost, or the state would do it and bill it to him. 

The omission of such a quid pro quo was a big mistake. But it is 
doubtful that the bill would have passed without the provision 
permitting logged land put to another use. In fact, Senator Swift 
Berry, a forester and former lumber company manager, told me a few 
years later that, "If you had not put that into the original bill, 
the Legislature would never have passed it." That doesn t mean 
that h_e_ would have voted against it, but that the Legislature would 
never have accepted it. 

Fry: I have some suggestions here that you made in 1952, in a kind of 
Forest Practice Act review that was held before the State Board 
of Forestry. There are nine suggestions that you make here for 
improving the Forest Practice Act at that point. 

Fritz: It included a performance bond, didn t it? I don t remember all 
the details in that statement. I tried several times to have the 
law strengthened but got snowed under each time. 

Fry: Yes. In fact, you say here that the first thing that should be 

added to the Act at that point Is the actual licensing of loggers 
and that these licenses could be revoked, if necessary. 


Fritz: That was accepted later. 

Fry: And second was the licensing of foresters, and third was the bond 
ing of owners and operators and in case of violation, costly court 
proceedings could be avoided. You said, "Greater care will be used 
to prevent damage to residual trees. And those who build up a good 
performance record could have the bond requirement abolished." 

You also suggest that land clearers be bonded, and you suggested a 
system of land classification with benefits for those who hurry up 
reforestation on forest land faster than natural regeneration. 

You asked, in 1952, for more personnel for enforcement. I think 
this had always been a complaint, hadn t it, that they just didn t 
have enough personnel from the State Division of Forestry to 
actually do all the inspections and the follow-ups that needed to 
be done? 

Fritz: That is true, but the State Division of Forestry also had a theory 
that they had to go through the "educational" process first with 
the operators. I bought that idea for the first few years, but 
education Is like it is at the University a never-ending job. 
You have a new crop of students coming on every year and you have 
a new crop of loggers coming on too. So it didn t work out. They 
had one man there, a law enforcement man, that I thought was sabo 
taging the whole thing, but I couldn t prove it. 


I had forgotten that I had made so many recommendations. I got 
badly beaten on the bonding. 

Fry: That never came about? 

Fritz: No, I was beaten on that. I can tell you this also. Some of these 
1952 points were objected to by the lumber industry. I don t think 
they would object to them now. The permanent operators had nothing 
to fear and much public good will to gain. At that time, all the 
principal pine and redwood operators practiced selective cutting. 

Fry: On what grounds did they object to the bonding of land clearers? 

Fritz: They were not too certain forestry would work out well. They were 

not sure that they could reforest it in the definite number of years 
that would have been specified. Looking back, their pessimism was 
better grounded than my optimism. Nature is still against us. In 
fact, many foresters are not sure. So I was on weak ground, but 
bonding could have been taken care of, at least to require that 
they f i re the slash and drop seeds on the ashes. 

None of these items that you have read to me did I take up with 
the redwood industry, for which I was an advisor; I never consid 
ered it necessary. The redwood people were exceeding the law any 
way. The principal violators were the many small fast-buck operators 


Fritz: that flooded the region during and after the war. Very few of 

these operated on redwood land, but their logs had to be trucked 
through the redwoods to the small mills on the Redwood Highway. 
I am grateful to the redwood industry for letting me go on as a 
free agent, while continuing as thc r advisor. 

The Doug I as Fi r Region 

Fry: After this Act was passed, the Douglas fir industry more or less 
came into its own in California, didn t it? 

Fritz: It started in 1940 and was already on its own. I must make it 
clear that the Douglas fir region most of It lies east of the 
redwood region, but the mills were on the Redwood Highway and 
most of these mills have melted away. It was the Douglas fir 
operations that needed policing. There were very few small red 
wood mills. The Douglas fir operations were on scattered small 
properties. That s a hangover from the days of the Homestead Act 
and the Timber and Stone Act, under which you could take up 160 
acres for a small fee. It made logical logging impossible for 
sustained yield. 

On the other hand, the redwood lands had been reconsoM dated 
seventy to eighty years ago. The Douglas fir region, lying along 
side the redwood region to the east, was not considered accessible 
until the war years. It was never ^consolidated after the U.S. 
mistakenly broke it into 160-acre units. They were good laws for 
Nebraska and Kansas, but not for mountainous country or for timber 
country. It was the worst thing that could have happened. 

It is the basis of so much mismanagement. Some people were jailed 
in the 1890 s and the early I900 s for fraudulent use of the laws, 
Included were a few congressmen and U.S. land agents. I refer you 
to Wallace Stegner s book on the western lands, and his reference 
to Major Powell of the U.S. Geological Survey, one of the first 
and most vocal critics of the two laws, Homestead and the Timber 
and Stone Acts. 

Many of the newcomers were fast-buck operators. They would log 
off a quarter section and move on. The state had a hard time keep 
ing up with them. These little operators came down from Oregon, 
Washington, and from the southeast. Some of them had never operated 
before, although they might have worked for a logger in some minor 
capacity. They couldn t lose. Here was Douglas fir timber at a 
dollar a thousand board feet when it was worth ten dollars a thou 

Most of this timber was on ranches, or the owner was the descendant 
of a family that located 160 acres and paid taxes on it of only a 
few dollars per year. So they kept the land, believing that some 
day it might be worth something. But along comes a little gyppo 


Fritz: logger, and he asks the rancher what he wants for it. He d say, 

"I don t know. What s it worth?" The logger might say one or two 

dollars. The rancher would make a quick multiplication and the 
total would look very good. 

Fry: So the ranchers were selling the Douglas fir off their lands? 

Fritz: Ranchers, yes, and other small holders, city people people scat 
tered all over the U.S. because the descendants of the original 
homesteaders had scattered to many parts of the country. I had 
letters from a lot of them. A consultant could have done a lot 
of business with them for managing their properties. I wasn t 
interested in liquidation, which most of them had in mind. 

Fry: They were all selling their timber very, very cheaply? 

r r Tz: Yes. The logger couldn t lose. The logger bought the timber cheao, 
He could go to an equipment man and say, "I m buying this timber 
over here and I m going to pay for it as I cut it." And the equip 
ment man would say, "How much are you paying for it?" 

He d say, "One dollar a thousand." "Hell, you can t lose at that 
price. How much equipment do you want to buy on credit?" 

Fry: So he could borrow from the equipment man and get a tractor. 

Fritz: Yes. He bought the equipment and paid for it as he got the money 
back from selling the logs to the sawmills. Many of the Douglas 
fir sawmills were separate ownerships from the logging at that 
time, although some mill men financed the loggers. 

In the redwood areas, in contrast, the milling and the logging 
were done predominantly by one company. It was completely inte 
grated because years ago the small lands had been consolidated, 
blocked out by watersheds, as I said. 

The Douglas fir was in the inner coast range, between the Central 
Valley and the coastal redwoods. These men couldn t lose, and 
they figured that they d just chop down the best trees and take 
the best logs out of the best trees. They cleaned up. Many of 
those lands were logged three and four times. There would always 
be somebody coming back to get what the preceding logger had left. 

Fry: So this was eventually clear-cutting going on. Do you feel then 
that the Forest Practice Act really was effective in dealing with 
the Douglas fir problem? 

Fritz: No, not with that type of operator. He could cut 160 acres in a 

very short time, before an inspector would get a chance to get out 
there. And there were so many operators, more than a thousand in 
one district, that one inspector for a county couldn t cover them 
all; so the logger could be back in Oregon or Washington where he 
came from by the time the inspector came around. 


Fry: The State Division of Forestry wouldn t have a chance then to get 
a court injunction to stop him. 

Fritz: No. There are a lot of things jno sees in hindsight, of course. 
With postwar urgencies for catching up on peacetime building, 
many things are overlooked. One small operator told me, "This is 
pioneer country and anything goes." He not only made a mess of 
his logging and gypped the owner of stumpage payments, but was 
actually trespassing on neighboring lands. 

Fry: Have the rules changed much in the Douglas fir region regarding 
cutting practices? In the northwest, it has long been the orac- 
tice to cut Douglas fir forests in blocks. Is this true in 
Cal ifornia? 

Fritz: Most Douglas fir stands have to be clear-cut. Even the Forest 
Service does it on national forest lands bordering the redwood 
region. But the U.S.F.S. follows up with slash disposal by burn 
ing, followed by planting or seeding. If you look through the 
Sierra Club s pictures, you ll find some pictures showing clear- 
cutting. If you know the stumps and if you know the area, you d 
know whether It was redwood or Douglas fir, but too often a Douglas 
fir area of stumps was labeled redwood. It s a misrepresentation 
that has caused many readers to be I ieve it to be redwood. 

Fry: Are Douglas fir forests even-aged in California as they are in 

Fritz: Not so much as in Oregon and Washington. 

Fry: Did the Forest Rules Committee consider block cutting an accept 
able practice for Douglas fir? 

Fritz: Yes, indeed. It is not so much the method, but how the method is 
applied that is important, and what is done to keep the land pro 

Fry: There was no change in rules then for Douglas fir, it was block 
cutting from the first? And all the other areas had selective 
cutting rules. 

Fritz: In Douglas fir there was some selective cutting from the start. 
But there was generally another logger who took out some of the 
residual trees, and he was followed by still another until nothing 
was left but debris. A few owners did do some reforesting but it 
was sma I I . 

One owner who took great pains to hold loggers to their contracts 
was Dr. William Kerr, owner of a large ranch east of Korbel in 
Humboldt County. He resorted to seeding and planting after the 
loggers were finished and the slash was disposed of or protected 
against fire. He also saw to it that seed trees were left. 


Fritz: I don t know of any block cutting (in which alternate blocks are 
left standing) in the Douglas fir area by small operators. They 
couldn t afford it and the owner wanted the land cleared. Don t 
forget that a large part of the Douglas fir region in northwest 
California is also ranch country sheep and cattle. The north- 
facing slopes are forested with Douglas fir, while the south and 
west slopes are fields of grass. Obviously, the ranch owner wanted 
more grassland. 

Even before World War I I , he tried to eliminate the Douglas fir by 
girdling or burning. When the war demand for lumber developed, the 
rancher was elated that now he could get his land cleared and be 
paid for it. That s why some of the stumpage was sold so cheaply 
in the first half of the I940 s, but eventually the more progres 
sive ranchers learned that it is difficult to maintain grass on 
former Douglas fir land. 

There is an important feature that should be mentioned here. The 
stockmen, having great faith in their local farm advisor, W. Douglas 
Pine, got him to make a study of the ranch-timber problem. Are the 
owners getting enough for their stumpage from the loggers? Is it 
true that the owner is better off to leave his north and east slopes 
in timber production, or can they be converted to grass? 

Douglas Pine s study had the blessing and support of the rTumboldt 
County Supervisors. His report makes interesting reading. What 
he reported was what foresters had been recommending for many years. 
But this time the story came from a farm advisor who was born in 
the county, was known and highly regarded by everyone, and who knew 
the ranch owners problems, as well as those of stock raising. 

The impact of his report was surprising. The county appointed a 
County Forestry Department with a trained forester in charge and 
set up a County Forestry Committee of about twenty local people. 
The county no longer has a forester. He is now a member of the 
County Farm Advisor s department, a more effective way to handle 
the job. The Committee is operating and holding almost monthly 

Fry: We might back up and ask you to tell what brought on this migra 
tion of loggers from Oregon and Washington in about 1940. 

Fritz: It was brought on by the war. The war started in 39. You may 
not know that wars are fought with lumber, as much as with steel. 
There s more tonnage of lumber used than steel. 

Fry: Why did they come down from such heavily forested states as Oregon 
and Washington? 

Fritz: That s a good question. The Oregon and Washington people had 

adopted the forestry tree-farming idea ten years before the Cali- 
fornians not quite ten years. 


Fry: Yes, but they didn t have their Conservation Act until about 
1941, did they? 

Fritz: I believe so. There was also t^.e Cnon -governmental]] tree-farm 

program, which was started by the Weyerhaeusers In 1941. It was 
a private undertaking to draw attention to the fact that a lumber 
company, to remain in business after their old growth is gone, must 
be protected against fire, insects, and disease and that the public 
has a stake in sustained-yield management. 

It takes a lot of acres to keep a we I I -equipped company in a never- 
ending supply of trees. So they bought as much of the loosely-held 
second growth of small and medium-sized owners as they could. Since 
the gyppo operators were already cutting second growth here and 
there, they found it more and more difficult to buy more second 
growth as they needed it. 

Two benefits were early realized from the tree-farm program: It 
prevented not only premature cutting without provision for con 
tinuity, but it made it possible for the more strongly financed 
and more efficient operators to realize their hope for perpetual 
timber crops (sustained-yield management). 

So the gyppo operators looked far afield for timber and found it 
in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties in California, in an area there 
tofore considered inaccessible. 

Fry: At any rate, consolidation of lands in Oregon and Washington forced 
the small loggers out. 

Fritz: Yes, that is the point. They learned there was a lot of old-growth 
Douglas fir available for logging In California, and they came down. 
There were few roads. How did they get Into it? They flew over 
it. "We can handle this timber," they said. 

Down here it was considered so inaccessible that even the federal 
government didn t inventory it closely. The gyppos came down and 
looked over the timber and the terrain. They found they could buy 
Douglas fir stumpage so cheaply that they could afford to build 
roads into the forest despite the rough steep terrain. You can do 
an awful lot with timber that s worth more than ten dollars if you 
pay only one dollar for it. That s how they got by. 

Of course, once that rush got underway, it boomed. The lobby of 
the Eureka Inn, which I had known ever since the hotel was built 
in 1922, was crowded more than ever timber cruisers, loggers, 
sawmill men, speculators, investors, brokers, and so forth. One 
prospective logger asked me, "What s wrong with this Douglas fir 
timber?" My reply was, "Nothing. It was considered to be too in 
accessible for the time. Why do you ask?" "Well, it is so dirt 
cheap." That was in 1944. 

Fry: And I guess the wartime demand for timber added to this. 


Fritz: You could sell any board that would be suitable for dunnage on 

Fry: So this Influx of successful gyppos was probably one factor then 

that encouraged your large timber owners not to buck a Forest Prac 
tice Act. 

Fritz: No. The old- line companies had not waked up to what they were 

missing. As to the wartime influx of loggers, this was believed 
to end with the war. The Forest Practice Law was largely my own 
idea at the time. It was hard to stomach what the "temporary" 
loggers were doing to the forest. 

Fry: The large timber owners supported it though later? 
Fritz: They were doing better then, in the logging part anyway. 

Fry: Do you feel that the Forest Practice Act was as effective as it 
could be at first, under the circumstances? 

Fritz: Through hindsight, we could have done many things that we didn t 
do. As soon as the law was passed, I stepped out of it. I fig 
ured I d done my job; let them do theirs now. I used to attend 
meetings where the rules were discussed, but not regularly. 

Fry: This was a Forest Practice Rules Committee? 

Fritz: Yes. I was never on one; I used to sit in with them as an auditor 
and to some extent as a commentator. 

I d like to make one closing statement on this subject. The pres 
ent L~I967U agitation in Sacramento by the Sierra Club to rewrite 
the Forest Practice Act is motivated less by a desire to improve 
the cutting practices than to harass the larger operators. At 
nearly every session of the Legislature since 1945, there have 
been amendments to the Act, and this bill from which I read you 
a part, is now much different than the 1945 version. 

The Sierra Club is especially agitating against the present per 
missible clear-cutting. They ll never kick that out of the law. 

It should be retained but it does need safeguards. They want to 
make the whole situation look bad for lumbermen and foresters. 

It s just another gimmick to enhance their status as saviours. 
When the bill was under discussion in 1945, there was not a peep 
out of the Sierra Club that I know of. 

Can we drop the Forest Practice matter now and go to your next 
subject? We have given it too much space already. 

The Redwood Rec 
Fry: Md like to ask you about the feasibility of clear-cutting in the 


Fry: redwoods. There s been a great deal of controversy raised by what 
was done in the Arcata Redwood Company lands, the clear-cutting 
there in Humboldt County. 

Fritz: What is your thought there? That clear-cutting is a general prac 
tice? Or that it is not proper? 

Fry: Well, neither. I think that is what the preservationists like the 
Sierra Club are trying to say. But my question is: Do you still 
think that selective cutting is good practice, or that clear-cut 
ting is sometimes advisable where you have windblow problems? I 
understand that you recommended clear-cutting the Arcata Company 
redwoods there. 

Fritz: Selective cutting has a number of advantages but it is not always 
applicable. Sometimes selective cutting won t work but clear-cut 
ting, of course, will work anywhere. Arcata Redwood Company tried 
selective cutting for about ten years. They did an excellent job 
and I used to show pictures of it to doubters. But then we learned 
that the residual trees are easily felled by wind and because the 
gravelly soil gave only a weak foothold. 

In new country you never know how a method will work out until 
you have given it a thorough trial. In the Arcata case, the Com 
pany was forced into clear-cutting because of the heavy annual 

Fry: Clear-cutting always works for regeneration too? 

Fritz: No. You can t wait for nature to do it; you have to do it your 
self. You either plant or seed. In northern Humboldt and Del 
Norte, you have a better chance for success by seeding than you 
have farther south. I can t see where so-called block cutting has 
answered the regeneration problem. The openings are too large. If 
the openings (blocks) are small, there should be a good response 
from natural seeding. 

Reforestation, even natural seeding in the case of selective cut 
ting, is difficult almost anywhere in California. I wish that 
economic conditions were such that we dared spend seventy-five 
dollars per acre. That day may come; it isn t here yet. 

Fry: Is the high cost due to the lower rainfall? 

Fritz: Yes. The selective cutting that you were speaking of is not the 
selective cutting that I had recommended. It s a little heavier. 
It s more like what is called the shelter wood system used in 
Europe. I think it s too heavy. The Sierra Club, of course, 
calls it clear-cutting, even If ten trees per acre are saved. 
There should be a minimum of five trees to the acre, and these 
trees must be selected for their seed-bearing capacity. 

Fry: Five seed trees per acre. This always confuses me in redwoods, 



because I thought redwoods reproduce most easily by sprouting. 

Of course, the stumps do sprout. That s very fortunate. But with 
only thirty-five or forty tree per acre to start with, the stumps 
are too widely spread. Natural or artificial seeding is required 
to assure a fully-stocked stand. Otherwise you will have, say, 
thirty-five clumps of sprouts per acre with too much open space 
between. We ought to have a minimum of five hundred trees per 
acre in addition to the sprout clumps to start with after cutting. 
Each stump, if it sprouts, can be counted as several in the five 

You are not alone in being confused about sprouting. Redwood for 
estry, like all western forestry, calls for a lot of pioneering by 
each company. At one time, we were satisfied with the sprouts 
alone. We know now that that is not enough. 

Many people regard the redwood region as so wet that reforestation 
should be easy. It is indeed wet in the winter. But from June to 
October, occasionally to November or December, we get so little 
rain as to make it correct to describe the region as semiarld 
In some years, the ground is full of seedlings until May or June. 
By July, it is often difficult to find one seedling. The rest 
have succumbed to soil dessication. 

Were it not for the frequent fogs and overcast days, the situation 
would be impossible for reforestation except by such heroic meas 
ures as planting seedlings grown in large pots, 1 rrigating, or by 
providing numerous windbreaks. Fog is not necessary for redwood 
but soil water is. Fog reduces or inhibits evaporation, and it 
no doubt supplies considerable moisture through the leaves. But 
fog is not dependable. 

In the Arcata case, the residual stand, left after logging for 
making further growth and for reseeding the blanks between sprout 
ing stumps, must remain standing. If it blows down, as it did in 
the Areata case, the loss is not only a loss of seed trees and the 
growth in volume of these seed trees, but an absolute loss of their 
original volume through shattering as the trees fall across. I saw 
the wreckage after one wind and was saddened as I have never been 
before in forestry work. Salvage was costly and the splintered 
logs left quite a mess. That was the end of selective cutting on 
Arcata f s property. 

I might add another factor: Several trees fell across the high 
way. I was told that one fell right after a loaded school bus 
passed. The logging foreman was quite alarmed over the danger and 
cut all the trees in the strip bordering the highway. This strip 
had been left a few years earlier to preserve the general scene. 


When d i d you f i rst become 
Association work? 

interested in the California Redwood 


Fritz: One who, like myself, taught sawmill ing and wood technology had 
many contacts with lumber associations. C.R.A. handled all the 
statistics, conducted the lumber grading committees or bureaus, 
and dealt with the Forest Prodi cts Laboratory (at Madison, Wis 
consin) on study projects concerned with mechanical and other 
properties. So it was natural that I should be known to the staff. 
It was a mutual benefit. 

I have done work for the Douglas fir and western pine associations 
as well as the redwood group. I was never on the payroll of the 
Redwood Association. Being on academic status, I was privileged 
to do consulting work. Most of this, for the redwood group, was 
in the forestry field, beginning in 1934 as a result of the N.R.A. 
Article X. When the N.R.A. was knocked out by the Supreme Court, 
Article Ten provisions were continued voluntarily. But I was com 
pletely independent, as an advisor. 

Maunder: Did this come out of your first work with Mr. C. R. Johnson of the 
Union Lumber Company? 

Fritz: Indirectly. When I went across the river and laid out the "wonder 
plot," I thought, after having measured It and marked it for per 
manent consolidation later, I would never see It again because I 
didn t expect to be in California that long. I hoped others would 
fol low through. 

But as it turned out, I ve stayed here almost forty years now and 
I ve remeasured that plot in three different decades. There s one 
coming up in 1963, and I hope I live long enough to measure it 
again because the data will be very interesting. 

May I add at this point that the forestry work I did for the red 
wood people was what the University should have done anyway. 
Without the additional compensation, I could not remain at the 
University of California. 

Maunder: Have they been following your original plan for cutting? 
Fritz: For second growth? 
Maunder: Yes. 

Fritz: Second growth was not in operation until the past few years. Those 
few who are cutting second growth are doing it only experimentally, 
following my original suggestion; but most of it, being in small 
unstable ownerships, is being cut on a quick cut-out-and-get-out 
basis. In my opinion, that s a grave mistake. The larger companies 
are holding to it for the future. 



Fry: Do you want to go back to a 1943 report of yours on the Forest 
Products Laboratory for the California Assembly?* 

Fritz: If you wish. We have a forestry alumnus named Wendell Robie, of 
Auburn, California. He s one of those dynamic men who has a wide 
range of interests. Being a retail lumber dealer, he saw the prod 
ucts phase of lumbering, although he was very much interested in 
woods forestry and civic matters in general. He was one of the 
founders of the Forestry Club at the University before we had a 
forestry school . 

Fry: Back in the early Nineteen . . . ? 

Fritz: 1912. He and I would meet once in a while and discuss the state s 
forest future. I told him about having been disappointed when I 
came to the University in 1919 to teach lumbering and forest prod 
ucts, but found no equipment. "What we need," I said, "is a Forest 
Products Laboratory. A university of this size and standing could 
do a great deal of good with such a laboratory." Other universities 
had small to large forest products laboratories. 

He thought well of the idea and without my knowing it, he got his 
own assemblyman to introduce a bill calling for the establishment 
of a Forest Products Laboratory at the University of California. 

Fry: He was from where? 
Fritz: From Auburn. 

Fry: Do you remember making a report to the Assembly for a Forest Prod 
ucts Lab? According to my notes, the Assembly, in 1943, passed a 
resolution calling for a report on the need for a laboratory, what 
it would do, what It would cost, and so forth. 

Fritz: Yes, I remember it very well. By the way, here s something that 

affects what I said about George Craig. This is our recommendation 
that the California Forest Study Committee be continued for another 
two years dreading from report! "for a study of certain aspects of 
the forestry situation which could not be gone into in the time 
avai I able." 

Fry: That s on page eighteen of your report? 

Fritz: Yes. "That the proposed Forest Products Laboratory at the Univer 
sity of California be established as soon as war conditions permit." 

^Resolution Chapter 121, May 8, 1943, California State 
Assemb ly . 


Fry: So it was already proposed by the time your report came out. I 
guess that was referring to the 43 proposal? 

Fritz: Was there a bill? 

Fry: I think it was just a resolution. 

Fritz: It was a bill originally, but they changed it to a resolution in 

43. Robie got his assemblyman to introduce the bill for a Forest 
Products Laboratory. It was a very short bill. I don t think it 
had more than eight or ten lines. I felt at the time it had no 
chance at all of passing. 

In fact, when there was a ripe moment, I mentioned that it was not 
the time to talk about that because we were in World War II. 
Whereas the acquisition of cutover lands was something that would 
require funds over a long period of time, the laboratory would re 
quire money right away. 

In 1943, there was introduced a bill, but changed to a resolution, 
asking the University of California to write a report on why it 
should have a Forest Products Laboratory. I was detailed to write 
it by the head of our school, Walter Mulford. The report was to 
have been presented to the 1945 Legislature. It did not get that 
far. I wrote the report, and we had a lot of copies mimeographed. 

Fry: Perhaps I should insert here that there s a copy of it in the 

University of California Library under what s called "Pamphlets. 
Its number is SO 359. 

Fritz: My memory now gets clearer on this matter. The war was over as 
far as Germany was concerned In April, 45. So the Legislature 
was already thinking about postwar problems. We had a very large 
state committee on reconstruction and unemployment. I was on one 
of the subcommittees of which Walter Johnson of San Francisco was 

Fry: You were on that committee as a representative of the University 
or representing forestry? 

Fritz: The University. You don t represent the University; you re asked, 
you re picked out of the University, by somebody from the outside 
who thinks you ought to be on the committee. 

Fry: In 1945 then, you think that this committee to tackle postwar 

problems might have had something to do with might have included 
the Forest Products Lab? 

Fritz: I was on Johnson s committee, not for the laboratory as such, but 
for what the lumber industry could do to make employment for the 
war veterans who might need jobs upon their discharge. We used 
to laugh about it because we felt there d be no unemployment at 


Fritz: all in California, because although most of these people all wanted 
to stay in our state, it was a matter of relocation and reemploy- 
ment. We d have plenty of work to catch up with this great back 
log of things that were held in abeyance until war s end. 

Fry: You thought that a housing boom would ensue. 

Fritz: Yes. No one could tell what else might increase the demand for 
lumber and thus make jobs. 

Walter Johnson was on the main relocation and rehabilitation com 
mittee and was the chairman of the subcommittee I was on. That 
committee did a great deal of work and made a lot of reports. But 
as it turned out, we developed no unemployment. Unemployment was 
the thing that had worried everybody. 

Instead of submitting my report on the laboratory, the University 
decided to hold it and to put the laboratory in a long list of 
buildings it felt were needed to catch up on the wartime post 

Fry: I see. And that s how it became a part of the postwar program. 

Fritz: That s just about the way it happened. I finished the report and 
was ready to give it to the Legislature when I was told it would 
not be necessary because the laboratory proposal had been ac 
cepted as a desirable building by the University. But it was 
given a rather low priority. I was glad that my report was not 
presented, because there were several things in it which even 
today make my face red. 

Fry: How s that? 

Fritz: It was brief and too modest. One thing was, I asked for only 
$100,000 to run the laboratory. If I remember correctly, the 
original bill (1943) called for $250,000 for the building alone. 

Fry: $100,000 annually, you mean? 

Fritz: Yes. My idea was to start small and build up. But I put $100,000 
down because I figured we d need only a few people to start out on 
some of the products problems I knew were aching to be solved. 
Furthermore, with only $250,000 one could not build and equip much 
of a lab. But the University felt differently and made a bigger 
thing out of it. Before the war, we were on a starvation diet in 

Every time I heard of the status of the Forest Products Laboratory, 
the amount of money that the University was asking for was in 
creased. The building cost, estimated In Robie s 1943 bill at 
$250,000, climbed to one million and then to two million, accord 
ing to my recollection. Anyway, no special legislation was needed. 
The University of California is no piker when it comes to asking 



Fritz: for funds. 

Later, I helped again in a small way. The dean of the school 
asked me to draw up general for the guidance of the archi 
tects. In order to do so, ! made trips to various very modern 
laboratories to see how they were arranged and equipped. 

Fry: What laboratories did you visit? 

Fritz: One up in the state of Washington, the Weyerhaeuser s laboratory; 
also Standard Oil s laboratory, and several others. 

Fry: You mean their petroleum laboratory? 

Fritz: It was a chemical laboratory, yes. We had to have a chemical 

laboratory too, because the chemistry of wood is very important. 

Fry: This was at the request of Dean Mulford? 

Fritz: Yes. He approved my suggestions. 

Fry: How did we finally get the Forest Products Lab at U.C.? 

Fritz: It was on that big building program which included several kinds of 
U.C. buildings a large chemistry lab, mathematics building, 
music building, and a new forestry classroom building, all of these 
on the campus. 

Fry: This was in the Fifties, just as you retired? 

Fritz: This was in the late Forties. But the laboratory had a very low 
priority. The forestry classroom building had a high priority. 
It was a badly needed academic building to be shared with other 
departments. It was one of the first ones to be finished after 
the war, 1948. The products laboratory was still on the list, 
but low down. I think we got that somewhere in the early Fifties. 

Fry: Before you retired, as you remember it. 

Fritz: Yes, just before I retired. 

Fry: How much did you do in the actual drawing up of the plans? 

Fritz: They were plans as to what was needed a wood chemistry laboratory, 
a testing laboratory, a dry kiln, and so forth, and a list of rooms 
and equipment. 

Fry: A list of the functions the lab should provide for? 
Fritz: Yes; I did not even finish that. 

Fry: I wonder if this is in your papers anywhere. I don t remember 
seeing it. 


Fritz: No, there was no correspondence about it. It was just myself and 
Mu I f ord and Professor Cockrel I who followed me. 

Fry: And where would your suggestions and plans be? 

Fritz: I don t know where they are. I had the official drawings of the 
Weyerhaeuser laboratory. They sent me copies and I made sketches. 
By plans, I mean only the general idea of space, functional rooms 
I i ke a small dry kiln, and floor plans or layouts. The file was 
still small and didn t amount to much anyway. There was mainly 
telephoning and visiting. At that time, everything was in its pre 
liminary stage. The real plans would be drawn by the University 

When the war ended, Professor Cockrel I returned to U.C. from war 
time duties at the great U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, at Madi 
son, Wisconsin. I soon discovered to my surprise that Mulford had 
assigned the job he had given me to Professor Cockrel I without in 
forming me. I was still on the committee and I would see the plans, 
by that time drawn by the architect, but I had nothing more to do 
with it except as a member of the committee. 

I m very happy as to how the laboratory worked out. It is a much 
bigger thing than I thought we could get approved in 1943, and I 
had done so little on it, that I think my part in it was just prac 
tically nothing, except for the Sacramento part. It looked like 
the penurious days at the University were over. We no longer talked 
of mere hundreds of dollars. 

I was a little peeved that Mulford would do such a thing, but it 
was characteristic of the man to assign something to one member of 
the faculty and then that member would suddenly discover that some 
body else was working on it. So I dropped it like a hot potato. I 
was due for retirement anyway. 

But everything came out well. The selection of Fred Dickinson to 
be the laboratory s director was a happy choice. He took over while 
the architects were still drawing up the plans in the early I950 s. 
The laboratory is now a real organization, thanks to Fred Dickinson, 
and has already won considerable renown. It is something that the 
University can always be proud of. Dickinson is a good administra 
tor and a good researcher. 

One day the head of the school was interviewing candidates. I had 

heard that Frank Kaufert, who I thought was a very good man for 

the job, had decided not to accept it. I was very regretful of it 

because he was a very able man. It was not the University s fault; 
the man himself made that decision. 

Then one day I was in the office, and I noticed Fred Dickinson sit 
ting in the dean s office the doors were open. I decided in my 
own mind there was only one reason why he should be there I knew 


Fritz: his history. I went to my office and telephoned to the Dean of 
the College of Agriculture, and told him that I had noticed that 
Fred Dickinson was in the forestry dean s office does that mean 
he s being considered for the headship of this laboratory? He 
said, yes. The Dean of Agriculture was an old friend of mine, 
Knowles Ryerson. I told him, "Knowles, for God s sake, don t let 
this man get away from you. This man is tops. He has something 
the other men didn t have." 

He said, "I m awfully glad you telephoned me about it because we 
were in a quandary about him." I don t know whether what I said 
about him had any influence but anyway he got the job, which was 
a satisfaction. 

Fry: Why did you not seek the directorship for yourself? 

Fritz: I have been asked why I did not seek the job. In the first place, 
I was so near retirement that it would not have been offered me. 
Then also, after dec! inlng consideration for deanships at Syracuse, 
Idaho, and Michigan State, and noting many times how deanships 
deprive a man of time to do things in his direct profession, I 
felt certain that administrative work was not for me. I have 
enough difficulty organizing my own life without trying to direct 
an organization. Having started a successful move for a labora 
tory at U.C. is enough satisfaction. 

Fry: Your move for a laboratory was initiated in 1943, twenty-four 

years after you came to the University of California. Were there 
any earlier efforts? 

Fritz: Yes. In 1925, there appeared to be an opportunity to make a bid 
for a forest products laboratory. It came about thus: The Uni 
versity had earlier acquired a tract of land in west Berkeley for 
agricultural experiments. Professor William Cruess, of the Fruit 
Products Division of the College of Agriculture, came to me one 
day to suggest that if we worked jointly, there would be a better 
chance for a successful bid. He was to have one half for his fruit 
products experiments and I was to have the other half for a forest 
products lab. 

I took it up with Professor Mulford who thought well of the idea 
and approved my spending some time on rough plans for display to 
the administration. Some months later, he came to my office and 
told me to discontinue my "planning" because the administration 
had decreed that it was "not the function of the forestry school 
to make money for the lumber industry"! That stopped me. No one 
had previously brought up that view. 

Any improvements the Forest Products Laboratory could develop would 
promote the practice of forestry. It was up to the others how they 
used our data for a more profitable business. Apparently, Bill 
Cruess got a similar instruction. His fruit products laboratory 
idea also died. 


Fritz: When we were moved to Giannini Hall, one basement room was assigned 
to forest products studies. I requested Mu I ford s approval for the 
purchase of a testing machine. It was denied with the comment: 
"We should not duplicate equipment already available In the Uni 
versity s Engineering Lab." 

Some years later, after our removal in 1948 to what later became 
Mulford Hall, Professor Bob Cockrell was successful in getting ap 
proval for a testing machine. Maybe I didn t punch the right but 
tons. Also, Fred Baker had become dean after Mu I ford s retirement. 

After the Forest Products Laboratory was completed (in Richmond), 
I never visited it. My part in it was finished. The director, 
Fred Dickinson, is such a competent man that he doesn t need the 
advice of a retiree. My main interest was to have such a lab 
authorized, built, and staffed. Also, my interests changed some 
what, away from products. Actually they didn t change but returned 
to my original interest: getting forestry out of the talking stage 
and into the woods. 



Fry: When you retired in 1954, my notes say that you became an advisor 
to F.A.R.M., which spelled out is what? 

Fritz: Foundation for American Resource Management. It was incorporated 
in 1955. 

Fry: How did you find out about this? 

Fritz: I met Mr. Carl F. Rehnborg in 1950, at the dedication of a red 
wood grove. 

Fry: I understand from talking to you previously that it was a relative 
of Carl Schenck who introduced you. Is that right? 

Fritz: Yes. I was introduced to him by the late George Merck who was at 
that time the chairman of the board of Merck and Company. George 
Merck was a sincere conservationist, especially interested in the 
promotion of forestry. 

Fry: Is that the pharmaceutical company Merck? 

Fritz: Yes. 

Fry: And Merck was a relative of Schenck? 

Fritz: A distant cousin. 

Fry: Was it at this meeting that Rehnborg said he was interested in con 
servation and was considering setting up a foundation to promote 

Fritz: Yes. Rehnborg had put up some money for a redwood grove in honor 
of his wife. The dedication we were participating in, however, 
was that of the Schenck grove, named for Carl Schenck, a German 
forester who came to the United States in the middle I890 s. He 
founded Bi Itmore Forest School. Schenck himself had come from 
Germany for the dedication. Rehnborg told me about his plans and 
asked if I would be willing to help him out. 

Fry: To organize a conservation foundation? 

Fritz: Yes, and I agreed that I would. And I did become one of the incor- 
porators of the foundation five years later. Mr. Rehnborg had ear 
lier asked me to take charge of the foundation, including solicit 
ing additional funds. I declined with thanks but agreed to act as 
an advisor on projects. This I expected to do without compensation. 
I had other plans for my retired years. 

Fry: So you started this about 1955, is that right? 


Fritz: Right. Between 1950 and 1954, I saw little of Mr. Rehnborg. He 

had become acquainted with Luther Hester of the Isaac Walton League 
and hired him to run the foundation and, of course, the preliminar 
ies to incorporation. 

Fry: And is that when you began to be formally connected with it? 

Fritz: Yes, first as an incorporator, and then as a trustee and vice-presi 
dent. Mr. Rehnborg was made president. 

Fry: The purpose of this was what, specifically? 

Fritz: As Rehnborg described it to me, he wanted to start a foundation 

which would encourage forestry practices, and the preservation of 
forests, scenery, local customs, and so on. He talked about buy 
ing up all of the cutover lands in the redwood region and then 
reforesting them! That was a huge order. When he talked to me in 
those days, he said little about saving more redwoods but expounded 
on forestry. 

Fry: What kind of a man was Mr. Rehnborg? 

Fritz: Rehnborg was a very interesting character, very intelligent, very 
active, but also precipitate. He and I were almost the same age. 
He apparently had had a rough early life, but since World War II, 
he made too much money too fast in his food supplement business. 
He wanted to spend some of it for good purposes. Of course, there 
was a tax gimmick too. He preferred to see his money spent rather 
than leaving it to Congress. 

Just how deep his interest in conservation was at that time or 
whether it was just the idea of being a prominent man in the con 
servation field, I could not fathom at the time. At any rate, 
when he started F.A.R.M. he agreed to support it for five years. 
In that time, we sponsored the forestry studies of various people 
who couldn t finance their own research. 

To start the ball rolling and to have an early product, the founda 
tion got out a printed bibliography on coast redwood.* (He had a 
great love for the redwoods.) He thought that would be a good way 
to start, after which we should have made a lot of contacts with 
people who are researchers and who need funds to conduct their 
studies. But after about three years, it was very evident that 
his interest had changed and that he had become enamored of Tahiti. 
He told me he wanted to help preserve the old way of life of the 
Tah itlans. 

*Emanuel Fritz, Cal ifornia Coast Redwood, an Annotated Bi_b_- 
I iography Including 1955, published by Foundation for American" 
Resource Management, San Francisco, California, 1957. 


Fry: Was this in connection with his Nutrilite Products, Inc. business? 

Fritz: No, it was entirely separate. Our funds came via Nutrilite Founda 
tion, which Mr. Rehnborg had organized for supporting boys camps. 

Fry: What had you done by the time you saw his interest beginning to 

Fritz: We had given money to study the influence of soil fungi on the 

health and vigor of tree seedlings and their establishment, a book 
for guiding conservation teachers in the north coast counties of 
California, and a book on California lands by Dana and Krueger, and 
so forth. 

Fry: And had you actually bought up lands and made any plantations? 

Fritz: Not an acre. 

Fry: Did you never buy any lands? 

Fritz: No. I explained to him what it would mean. It would take sev 
eral hundred million dollars to buy up all the cutover lands in 
the redwood region and reforest them. He was told of the diffi 
culties attending reforestation and that considerable research 
is needed to study effective reforestation methods. 

Fry: And I understand you had $100,000 to work with, is that right? 

Fritz: You mean to start with? No, we had $50,000 to start with. He 

put a total of nearly $500,000 into the Foundation. That included 
costs of running the office, which cost did not come from Nutri 
lite Foundation s treasury but out of his persona! pocket. 

At the end of the five-year period, he was so involved in Tahiti 
that he decided to dissolve F.A.R.M. We had also learned that his 
understanding of conservation was preservation. Forestry to him, 
I learned, was not conservation. 

Fry: Was this money that he put into F.A.R.M. Nutrilite money or his 
own money? 

Fritz: The money to F.A.R.M. came directly from the Nutrilite Foundation. 
Nutrilite Foundation owned a large share of Nutrilite Products, 
Inc., of Buena Park, California. 

Fry: So I suppose the money for the Nutrilite Foundation in turn came 
from Nutrilite Products, Inc.? 

Fritz: Yes. Nutrilite Foundation was eventually to own ninety percent of 
the producing company. I don t know if they ever got up that high 
or not. It was a very profitable thing. His product at that time 
was sold as a food supplement vitamin and mineral tablets and cap 
sules, distributed direct to the house by agents through a private 


Fritz: sales company. It was a very Interesting marketing practice, and 
it was separate from Nutrilite Products, Inc. We had nothing to 
do with that, of course. Later on, he developed a line of cos 
metics. At the present time, I don t know what they re dolnq, 
except for the food supplement ~nd the cosmetics. His Interest 
has changed again. He s now absorbed in astronomy and has his 
own observatory. 

Fry: Where s that? 
Fritz: Near Hemet. 

Fry: What was he doing in Tahiti then, that began to take money from 
your . . . ? 

Fritz: I don t know. He went down there I think just on a visit and 
loved the spot and soon felt that that particular kind of life 
should be preserved, along with local traditions and customs. 
Then he bought the hotel, and a year later, it burned down. I 
think he has rebuilt it. It cost him a big wad of money and was 
a great disappointment to him. 

Of course, he had to work with a government that took Americans 
for suckers, the French government, and just what the status is 
at the present time, I don t know. He was justifiably very angry 
over having been so badly used. 

Fry: How did you find out that you were supposed to dissolve F.A.R.M.? 
Did this come as a surprise to you? 

Fritz: No. He was one of the trustees. Kenneth Smith was president at 
that time. I was surprised that his interest in it lasted tha+ 

Fry: So you saw this developing then, through your board meetings and 
so forth? 

Fritz: In fact, I was in Europe in I960, away for three months. I was 
told about it before I left. When I came back, all I had time 
for was to gather up my own stuff and see that the remainder was 
packed and shipped to Buena Park. 

Fry: Can you give us a description of what you did for these five years 
that you were with F.A.R.M.? 

Fritz: The amount of money he gave us wouldn t go very far. Three appli 
cants were for money for studying mycorrhiza, publishing a redwood 
bibliography (completing one I had started), and sponsoring a 
Douglas fir insect study. We sponsored preparation of a book by 
Dana and Krueger, provided funds for a guide book for redwood 
region conservation teachers, and supported a teacher to work 
for his Ph.D. degree and thesis on redwood. 


Fritz: We gave one man about $7,500, as I recall it, to get a Ph.D. at 

Oregon State College and to write a dissertation on the management 
of old-growth redwood. 

Fry: Who was that? 

Fritz: Professor Ed Pierson of Humboldt State College. We had many ap 
plications, we turned down some, and we learned how many people 
wanted a cut of the pie. Some projects didn t qualify at all. Of 
course, actions were taken not only on my recommendation but by 
the trustees themselves. 

We had somewhat over $100,000 left when we closed shop in I960. 
This the trustees voted to spend directly on a study of methods of 
reforesting old redwood cutover lands, a method which would give 
a higher percentage of survival than was being obtained. 

Fry: This sounds like one of your ideas. 

Fritz: It was the original idea of 1950, the one I d told Mr. Rehnborg 
about when he first asked me about projects. He bought the idea 
but later he didn t regard it as germane to conservation. 

The trustees voted the money to be spent on this reforestation 
study. I was the trustee to oversee it. We hired a forester as a 
field man who, with periodic help, would do all the work the 
planting, look out for the protection, keep the records, keep up 
the fences, and make periodic studies of the survivals. And wher 
ever possible try to figure out why some plants died. 

We thought that the man should put his full time in on that, not 
as a side issue, and that he should live near the project. So 
the man had to live in Fort Bragg, nine miles east of the project 
area. Too many times, projects like that are started, and the 
plants are put in the ground in the spring and are not looked at 
again until the following year; and it was impossible to pinpoint 
causes. But our man was out there all the time so he could detect 
if anything was wrong. The project was begun in 1961 and finished 
in 66. 

Fry: Who was this man? Was he a forester? 

Fritz: We had three of them in succession. One unfortunate thing was we 
didn t have the same man the whole time. The first was Henry 
Houghton, a Syracuse graduate but not in that particular field. 
His experience was mostly in forest engineering work. He had to 
quit us because he was losing his eyesight. 

So we got another man, a graduate of Humboldt State College in 
forestry, Fred Gius, who was very good and tremendously interested. 
But he was killed one night in a highway accident. So then I got 
another man, James Rydelius, and by chance, he also was a graduate 


Fritz: of Humboldt State College and also had a master s degree from Yale 
University Forestry School. (Fred Gius had a master s from the 
University of California.) 

Fry: And how did your third man work out then? 

Fritz: Excellent. He was coauthor of the final report.* Like Fred Gius, 
he was tremendously interested. So interested that as long as he 
lives, I imagine he ll be going back there to see how his plant 
ings are getting along. 

The project was to run only about five years because the first two 
years of a plantation in this region are critical. If the seed 
lings survived them, one could say that it was established. So we 
started a series of experiments the first year and duplicated them 
the second year and added some new ones the third year and so on. 
We even started some in our last year. I ve been up there once 
since, to see how they re getting along. 

The report is finished and the Foundation is now being dissolved; 
and the residual money is being returned to the Nutrilite Founda 
tion, which in turn will use it for its boys clubs. Mr. Rehnborg 
had a great interest in that. 

Fry: Boys Clubs of America? 

Fritz: I don t know if they were purely local or affiliated with the 
Boys Clubs of America. 

Fry: How much money did you have to return? 

Fritz: Something like $20,000. So the project cost us about $80,000. 

Fry: Were you able to carry on this project long enough to bring any 
conclusions to light? 

Fritz: Yes, we found some very important things. One of them was that 

most of the mortality of seedlings begins right away, right after 
planting, and continues through the next two or three months. I 
think it s important because that gives an idea of what one must 
do to get a better record of survival. 

We know that we have to have good stock, we know that we must have 
good soil, we know that the soil must be moist all through the sum 
mer, moist enough for the plant. It s a question of seeing that a 
good plant is properly planted in the first place, to see to it 
that whatever moisture is in the soil from the winter rains is 

*Emanue| Fritz and James A. Rydejius, Redwood Reforestation 
Prob I ems: An Experimental Approach to Their Solution, FoundatioF 
for American Resource Management, 1966. 500 copies. 


Fritz: conserved or made to last through the summer. We tried putting 

down sheets of building paper on the ground, with the plants com 
ing up through holes. (The same scheme is common in the great 
pineapple fields in Hawaii.) 

Fry: To conserve moisture? 

Fritz: Yes, to conserve moisture by preventing evaporation. There were 
many other things that were recommended that didn t work, for 
example, treating a plant with a coating that would cover all the 
leaves and stems and in that way cut down transpiration. It didn t 
work well enough. We also pruned the twigs to restore a balance 
between roots and needles. Some roots are lost in lifting the 
seedling from the nursery and transplanting it. It s a good idea 
but not practical enough. 

Most of the methods helped, but they didn t justify the extra cost. 

Of course, our project was on a very uncongenial site. We took it 

because we felt it to be a good growing site once the new forest 
was establ ished. 

Fry: You didn t plant plots then on different terrain, different soil 

Fritz: It was all more or less the same soil, thirty acres of it. On 

such an area, there are bound to be some differences, even between 
each planting hole. We talked about having a soil analysis made 
early one of the first things then decided not to because we 
wouldn t know any more at the end than we did before, for this 
reason: when you make a soi I analysis, you do it by sampling. 
That doesn t mean that you re going to put a plant where you got 
this sample. And it doesn t mean that the plant that you put 
there will either grow or die. 

So I preferred to do all the planting first and continue the pro 
ject to some logical end, and then make our soil examination, con 
centrating on only the spots on which the trees died. We were less 
interested in the ones where the seedling survived. 

Fry: In other words, you were aiming at seedling mortality and the 

causes of that, not especially on comparative growth rates under 
varying conditions. 

Fritz: No. We used both Douglas fir and redwood, more Douglas fir than 

Fry: So this was more than just a redwood study? 

Fritz: You know, when a farmer plows a field, what he plants is determined 
not only by what the soil will grow but what the market will buy. 
At present, the market will buy Douglas fir on a larger scale than 
it will redwood, of the same age under one hundred years. 


Fry: Were you concerned also with the relationship of redwood growth 
among Douglas fir, and the relative mortality? 

Fritz: Yes, when they re mixed up; that would work out that way anyway 
because we have the rows togetner, they alternate. 

Fry: You might tell us the size in acres of this study and from whom 
you borrowed the land. 

Fritz: The fenced area was thirty acres. We didn t use quite all of it. 
The Union Lumber Company, of Fort Bragg, gave permission for its 

Fry: And this meant you had about how many thousands of seedlings to 
look after? 

Fritz: I never added them up. Every year we d buy more than ten thousand. 

Fry: What happened when you had to close this down? Do you think any 
body s going to be around to do the soil tests? 

Fritz: The company has a forestry department. 
Fry: And you think Union will continue this? 

Fritz: Oh yes, they go out there once in a while to check up on the plants 
and to see what they look like. And also to check on the fences. 
We had to put a fence around the whole property to keep the deer 
out because next to fire, the deer are the worst handicaps we have. 

Fry: Yes, the deer keep nipping off the tips of the seedlings. 
Fritz: That s a very discouraging thing. They take more than the tip. 

Fry: You could study the si I vi cultural aspects of growing redwood seed 
lings, but you d still have the deer to contend with. 

Fritz: Of course, we don t know how many the deer got that we attributed 
to other causes, although I don t think they d amount to anything 
because our fence was tight at that time. Later on, we noticed 
the deer started breaking through the fence, and we put up fences 
inside the main fence. Every time we planted something, each 
year s planting was then fenced separately. 

Fry: Do you think that this is going to be something that can be used 
by the industry? 

Fritz: Unquestionably. The forestry department of each company got a 
copy of the report, also each redwood region library, and each 
local high school and college. 

Fry: Are you going to follow up personally just on an informal basis 
what the seedlings do? 


Fritz: I ll be going up there once in a while. Of course, I can t walk 
very much any more and have to depend on others who might be with 
me. Jim Rydelius will follow through also, if only for his own 

Fry: During these five years, did you spend any time out there on the 
ground going over things? 

Fritz: I went up there occasionally, not as much as I would have liked, 
but enough to keep in touch with the men. We had frequent tele 
phone conversations. I got a weekly report of what was being done. 

Fry: Was this a full-time job that you had? 

Fritz: 1 got no compensation out of it. The local field man was the only 
salaried employee. Occasionally, he had to hire others for help. 

Fry: So this wasn t some kind of postreti rement employment that you 

Fritz: No. 1 did get part of my expenses. The money all went into the 
project and to the man we hired. We had to buy a truck, a chain 
saw, and a lot of small tools. The chain saw we needed for cut 
ting down some of the Interfering trees that occupied part of 
the area. 

Fry: I see that your report is 128 pages. This is available, I guess, 
in the Forestry Library, at U.C. 

Fritz: There are no copies to be bought now. We had only five hundred 

Fry: How do you feel about this whole F.A.R.M. project? Are you sorry 
that it ended? 

Fritz: I wish the Foundation could have had a more substantial base. It 
was very difficult for me and other trustees to understand just 
what Mr. Rehnborg had in mind, how he interpreted conservation or 
forestry. I don t know today just what he means by conservation, 
except that he does not regard reforestation as conservation! 

Fry: What s an example of what he thought conservation was? 

Fritz: Buying a piece of land and calling it a park, not cutting anything. 

Fry: More a preservationist? 

Fritz: Yes. 

Fry: Have you received any response from your report yet on the part 
of foresters in industry? 

Fritz: Oh yes. 


Fry: What s some of the feedback that you ve gotten? 

Fritz: They re all delighted to have a copy, and they complimented us on 
the amount of work that went Into It. 

Fry: You have a feeling then that this will be incorporated into for 
est management plans, where redwood reforestation needs to be done? 

Fritz: No, that is not something that you can incorporate, but it can give 
you a lead as to how to do the planning. At least the foresters 
will know the experience we had so that they are on their guard. 
I understand it s to be reviewed somewhere. Maybe it will be 
"panned. " 

Fry: Who did the editing on the report? Did you do it? 

Fritz: Yes. I wrote maybe ninety percent of the first drafts. I would 
write, and Jim would go over it. Jim would make a lot of changes 
and I would rewrite it. In some cases he wrote the original and 
then I would edit his. So I think you could say that it was a 
fifty-fifty job. How the contents will be used is up to others. 

Jim, I am happy to say, got a job in Simpson Timber Company s 
research department before the report was finished. So he put 
in a lot of time on his own. 

Fry: What do you think of your work with F.A.R.M.? 

Fritz: I never wanted a job from F.A.R.M., but I succumbed to Mr. Rehn- 
borg s initial enthusiasm. I had much different plans for my 
time after retirement from the University in 1954. Before I could 
get my breath, the simple office space I had recommended grew to 
four rooms. Had Luther Hester been kept in F.A.R.M. as its ad 
ministrative head instead of being taken into the company, where 
he rapidly became its president for a short time, F.A.R.M. might 
have survived the changes in interest. In its short life, F.A.R.M. 
did do considerable good at a low cost. 



Maunder: Do you see any long-term dlm!m.rlon of the influence of one or 
the other type of forester, as the field develops? 

Fritz: I believe you refer to the employment of forest school graduates 
by private industry. The number in private employ is already 
exerting a strong influence. 

Maunder: Is the proportion of foresters in private employ going to con 
tinue to increase? 

Fritz: Oh yes, it s bound to happen. You just can t hold forestry back 
on private land. It s impossible because of the inexorable laws 
of economics and the desire of the timber investors and the manu 
facturers to stay in business. It s the only business they know, 
and they are bound, without the help of any foresters, to give 
thought to the perpetuation of their industry. 

s out of logs, it has nothing but scrap value, 
a continuous supply of logs and if it is properly 

When a sawmi I I i 

whi le if it has 

maintained, it s better than a brand new mill 

Maunder: You were over at the Fort Valley celebration, and you heard some 
of the talks and speeches that were given there. You heard Dr. 
Richard McArdle s talk that night in which he dealt to a very 
considerable degree with the history of forestry and the prog 
ress, or lack of progress, which he felt 
par i son with, let s say, developments in 
might you say of this expression of opinion from the top echelon 
of government forestry? 

was being made 
other fields. 

i n com- 

Fritz: I have a high regard for Dick McArdle, both as a man and as a for 
ester. He came up through the ranks during the days of turmoil. 
He has a better bunch of men under him than did his predecessors, 
better trained and better outlook. There are, however, several 
on his staff who absorbed some of the socialistic views of the 
Thirties and Forties. 

It is hard for a man in public service to fight off the temptation 
to lord it over others. Mac is not of that breed. I don t think 
he was pessimistic over the lack of progress. He has seen much 
progress in his own time. There could have been more, of course. 

Maunder: What would you say about McArdle s statement that progress in for 
estry has been slower than that in the fields of medicine, trans 
portation or communication? Does his analogy bear up under careful 

Fritz: The progress of forestry, I think, has been good when you analyze 

the handicaps. The handicaps were men like Gifford Pinchot, Herman 





Chapman, Earle Clapp, Chris Granger, and several others who kept 
the pot of antagonism constantly stirred. 

Forestry would have come to the lumber industry if there had never 
been a forester in this countr/ or a forestry school, but it would 
have been slower and it would not have been launched as we II as it 
is being launched now, because foresters in the past in federal 
service, in the state service, and in the forestry schools have 
all contributed a great deal to the knowledge of forestry. A lot 
of it is purely academic, but on the other hand, a lot of it is 
very useful and it has made people think. However, I think the 
progress of forestry would have been better and faster if Pinchot 
had set the stage for a friendly cooperation, the kind of coopera 
tion that Greeley was trying to work out. 

I think it s a great tribute, a monument, to Colonel Greeley that 

a short time in the Northwest, 
entire United States. He was 
but it has been proved quite 

he was able to do so much in such 
His influence has spread over the 
severely criticized for his stand 
correct at the present time. 

I think from here on out, forestry is going to develop so rapidly 
that it will outdistance the academic foresters, and I think that 
in the future, the Forest Service will be just one more bureau. 
Leadership will come from the foresters in private employ as to 
the progress being made. The comparison between forestry and 
medicine is well made. Medicine is much older, its men have had 
better training, and the economic aspects were quite different. 

I don t think that a man can do as good a job in public service 
as one in private employ, where somebody is watching him all the 
time to see that he spends every dollar and every hour economically 
and that he produces something for it. There isn t that supervi 
sion in public employ, whether city, state or federal. 

Let us not forget that our public foresters have not yet learned 
to their own satisfaction that they are managing the forest cor 
rectly. Certainly the national forests are not managed as economi 
cally as they could be. 

That would seem to imply that a greater and greater proportion of 
the original and field research in forestry is going to be spon 
sored and carried out from the private side rather than the public. 
Is that the course that you expect to see develop? 

I do, and It s been true of all professions and industries. Much 
of it is experimentation rather than research but just as impor 
tant. Take the steel industry you can t say that its progress 
was due to federal activity. It was done by men who saw the value 
of research, and I would single out two men: Andrew Carnegie and 
Charles M. Schwab. They saw the drawbacks of the steel they were 
making at the time, they needed better steel, and they got it by 
turning researchers loose. My very first job of any consequence 


Fritz: was from the president of the Maryland Steel Company. When I went 
into his office, he was sitting at his desk with a compound micro 
scope studying a piece of polished steel. That was all brand new 
at that time. When I got into forestry, a lumberman wouldn t know 
which end of the microscope to look through and probably thought 
you were foolish to look at wood so minutely. 

The story is different today. At least, such study is now res 
pected. But don t ridicule American forestry. I think the Ameri 
can foresters are way ahead of the European foresters when you con 
sider the economic conditions and the short time they ve been at 
it. We ll probably be a long time reaching the intensity of Euro 
pean forestry. I hope we never have to come to it. We might have 
to if our population is permitted to boom along as it has, but it 
is not good for the country. 

Maunder: Emanuel, all through your professional career you have been, I 
think, noted as a letter writer, article writer, and a public 
speaker at important meetings of conservation groups and the for 
estry profession. Can you tell us a little bit about that part 
of your career? 

Fritz: I don t know that it s so very important. I wrote a lot of papers, 
but they were mostly of the argumentative type, or in the form of 
argument more of that than technical, although a few of the ar 
ticles I have written are technical and some were never published. 
I probably did more of that than some other teachers, but there 
were many teachers who did a great deal more than I did and did 
it much more effectively. 

I have always fought shy of the platform and still get scared when 
I do mount it. I am not a good speaker and can make an awful mess 
if I try to speak extemporaneously. You probably noticed at the 
recent S.A.F. and A.F.A. meetings, I kept myself in the background. 
1 follow the practice that if anybody else is doing the job I m 
thinking about, let him carry the ball; and if he gets into trouble, 
I ll help him out. But as long as he s doing a good job and is 
accomplishing something, I won t interfere with him. There s 
enough glory for all. 

Maunder: I ve noticed that in recent years you ve been a rather frequent 
contributor to discussion in the pages of American Forests maga- 
zine. When did you get interested in the American Forestry Asso 
ciation? Can you tell us a little about your participation in its 
affairs and in its publication? 

Fritz: I ve been a member of the A.F.A. as long as I ve been a member of 
the S.A.F., and I ve always taken a strong interest in it, but the 
A.F.A. has been up and down. For many years, it was considered 
to be the mouthpiece of the Forest Service, and then when it ac 
cepted advertising from the lumber industry and ran an occasional 
lumbering article, it was accused of being under the thumb of the 
lumber industry. I think if either was a fact, it was bad, but 


Fritz: in general, the A.F.A. was rather independent. 







The fact that I didn t write much for the American Forests maga- 
z i ne in the past was due to my feeling of ob I i gat I on to the Jour 
nal of Forestry. In more recent yc-TS, because the American For 


magazine has a different audience than the Journal 
I thought my articles on certain subjects should go in 
were not articles, incidentally, but letters. 

of Forestry, 
there. They 

You look 
means of 

upon the American Forests magazine as one of the principal 
reaching the public in matters of conservation and for 

Yes. Just because a person is not directly involved in natural 
resources doesn t mean he is not interested. Its audience is not 
trained in general conservation or forestry, or mining or water 
shed protection, but they re all fine people, they re well-meaning 
people. They get only one side of the story from the propaganda 
that the press publishes. Sometimes the magazine itself is some 
what one-sided. The most recent example, I think, is the issue 
of this past spring which goes overboard accepting the interpreta 
tion of the Forest Service in the Timber Resources Review data. 
The data is probably all right but the interpretation has gone 
wild, I think. 

In other words, you feel that Jim Craig and his staff have missed 
the point on that particular issue? 

Yes. The editor is 

but he s definitely 

not a forester, 
interested. He 

he < 

s not a conservationist, 
a journalist, and a jour 
nalist s job is to print articles in his magazine that will be 
read. Like many editors, he has to depend on what is sent to him, 
and it takes a keen nose to detect the possibility of the stuff 
being slanted. Agencies sending out news releases don t do it 
to help the press, but to do one of two things: to do genuine 
educational work, or to soften the public on some action the 
sender hopes to take against possible opposition. 

Press releases need careful scrutiny. Then there are the free 
lance writers who have a flair for writing but not the will or 
training to investigate facts. 

Emanuel, looking back over your career in this ffeld, how would 
you evaluate your contribution to the field of forestry? 

Well, compared to that of many other foresters, my contribution 
is miniscule. When I switched to forestry, I felt that it was 
not only a desirable profession with a constructive objective, 
but nothing seemed to be done about it except talking and writing. 
So I decided early to make my own activity the transfer of the 
talk into action: putting forestry into the woods. At the 
University, I taught lumbering and wood technology, not forestry. 







But the vacuum in forestry drew me in and ever since then, my own 
concern and activity is related to getting forestry into the woods. 
I think I have been at least partially successful. Perhaps I also 
helped defeat the trend toward socialism in forestry. 

I felt that if I stuck to forestry, I wouldn t be scattering my 
shots. Furthermore, I don t think I would have had the capacity 
to take care of them all. I notice among those foresters who 
shifted over into watershed protection and wildlife management 
that they haven t done forestry very much service by leaving it, 
or they haven t done very much for the other fields by going into 
them because they certainly were not trained for them. 

Recreation seems to be getting more and more attention these days. 
Have you anything to tell us about the history of the development 
of that concept of forest use? 

Recreation was always a part of forestry. Its increase was in 
evitable. The American people have always loved the outdoors. 
There was so much woods and forest to go to close to the towns, 
big and little towns, that the people got an idea that all the 
wild country was theirs to enjoy. 

As a teenager, I was out in the 
larly in the beautiful Druid Mil 
On Saturdays, my classmates and 
we d bicycle out on the country 
days hard on tires. 

woods a great 
I Park, on the 
I used to take 
roads, such as 

deal, and particu- 
edge of Baltimore. 
a lot of hikes, or 
they were in those 


Recreation must be made a part of land management. Forestry, re 
creation, and wild life management must be made congruent elements 
of forest land management or there will be interminable conflict. 
But private owners who are opening their lands to recreation and 
fixing up overnight camps should familiarize themselves with legal 
aspects. They are setting up what the public will demand as a con 
tinuing right. Entrance fees should be required when feasible. 
I ve noticed that wherever a recreationist is charged for a picnic 
table, he is always a better citizen, a better housekeeper, than 
if it s all free and he thinks that there ll be a ranger around to 
pick up after h im. 

What do you think lies behind this temporary trend of making 
private lands freely available for the recreationist? Why don t 
they charge for it? 

Unless a caretaker is always in attendance, entrance fees are 
hard to collect. The cost will have to be charged to the public 
relations account. Prepared camp sites help concentrate the 
people, so they can be observed, to prevent mischief, and to 
facilitate sanitation and fire protection. 

What do you think of the wilderness proposition that s so much 
before us these days? What do you know about the history of the 








wi Iderness i dea? 

The wilderness area is just, you might say, an extension of pub 
lic parks, but it has that name because it s not in park status 
and it is certainly wild; yet if is actually park land when you 
come right down to it. The present Controversy over the Wilder 
ness Bill, Senate Bill 4807, would not have occurred at all if it 
had not been for some so-called professional conservationists who 
are making jobs for themselves in demanding that the already exist 
ing wilderness areas be given legal status. 

They have legal status now, in a way, 
want it surrounded, you might say, by 
their own supervision. I think that 
cause you superimpose on the National 

but it s flexible. But they 
a fence of law and then have 
s very bad management be- 
Park Service and the U.S. 

Forest Service another authority. They claim that they won 1 
exercise any authority or interfere with the National Forest and 
National Park people. Well, you never heard of a bureau being 
set up, or even an office, that remained stationary. They wi I 1 
have to have supervisory personnel, rangers, and fire protection. 
The present publicity will cause so many people to visit the wild 
erness that it will not long remain wild. 

Tell us about your affiliation with the Sierra Club, 
you join that group? 

When did 

Well, I would have joined it immediately on my arrival in Cali 
fornia, but being in forestry work, I would get plenty of hiking 
on the job. Before the University had automobiles and before I 
had one, I would walk many, many miles in the woods, and I m 
glad it was necessary to do so because in my opinion, that is the 
only way to learn something about the forests. You can t travel 
as fast and you have to stop and rest and look around. If there 

is a better way, it s 
watches the trail and 

from the back 
your eyes can 

of a horse where the 
roam around at will. 


When did you get into the Sierra Club? 

About twelve years ago. One of its officials, a good friend of 
mine, thought I should be a member, so I signed up. 

Have you ever taken part in their affairs? 

No. I don t care much for their kind of hiking and big parties; 
it s more of a mob. I prefer a more leisurely hike so I can learn 
something about the vegetation, rocks and general terrain. 

This Club draws to a considerable extent for its membership from 
businessmen and professional people, doesn t it? 

Fritz: Yes. That s the logical membership because they don t have as 

much opportunity as a field forester has, to be in the woods, and 


Fritz: in order to save time, they join the Club and have organized hikes. 

Maunder: You ve observed a lot of groups of this kind during the years. 
Have you developed any insight into the mentality of people who 
make up these very voca! conservation groups? 

Fritz: Yes, I have. In general, they are a fine class. Some join to en 
joy the outdoors with others of the same interest. Some join to 
help the Club promote its projects, such as saving the dinosaur 
area, a part of Grand Canyon, and the wilderness. Just to be hik 
ing is good fun and healthful exercise. A few, interested in plants, 
animals or Insects, get much more out of a good hike. A Club hike 
is a good medium for making friends and also converts for the 
Club s projects. 

Maunder: Do you think this is a generalization you can make about the rank 
and file of the members of such groups? 

Fritz: One gets the impression from the Club s pronouncements on causes 
that it regards itself as the only simon-pure conservationist. 
The idea of putting a resource like a stream or forest to some use 
is abhorrent to the extremists. Nature must be left alone. The 
wilderness must not be touched. The "ecology must be left complete," 
whatever that means. 



Well, conservation is indeed important. It should start at home. 
Many of our loudest conservationists direct conservation only to 
the other fellow s property. To really enjoy the wilderness, one 
must be the first one there after the snows have melted. When the 
hikers have come and gone it is too late. The vegetation really 
takes a beating. Having said all this, let me hasten to say that 
we should preserve reasonable-sized areas in their primeval condi 
tions except for trails to which visitors must be constrained. 

What other groups or organizations fall into this same general 
category, which you define as "professional conservationist"? 

There are now a number of resource conservation associations. All 
have a good purpose. How they go about achieving their objective 
depends on the executive head. Very few are trained for the job. 
To keep the organizations alive, the executive must be adept at 
keeping his members stirred up over causes, issues, and projects, 
much like a trade union boss. 

I fail to see why there is so much agitation to set up a council 
for support to the heads of the National Park Service and the U.S. 
Forest Service. The wilderness has been protected for many years 
by the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service. Even if a 
council is set up, the protection job will remain within these 
bureaus. But once a council is set up, it will soon grow into a 
large bureau. Bureaus are never static. They grow and grow. The 
public will be invited to visit its wilderness estate. NoTfTTng 


Fritz: could be worse than to have the wilderness overrun by people. 

Soon they will demand roads and buildings and that will be the end 
of the wi Iderness. 

Maunder: Do these conservationists stand opposed even to trails in this 
wi I derness area? 

Fritz: Not so much trails as jeep trails and roads. They don t want any 
vehicles out there. Horses and mules are permitted, but they have 
to eat and they certainly aren t going to carry hay for them. 
Except perhaps for oats, they re going to have to live off the 
country. If twenty-five parties go over the same trail, the last 
party is going to have a hard time finding feed for the horses. 
So there goes your meadow and there goes your prairie and all the 
wild flowers we came to see. 

Fry: This has been a big recording project for you, often with many 

long intervals between sessions. It is time we signed off, though 
I would guess that you are accustomed to such assiduous work. 
Thank you very much for your labor. 



Ufjcoionumdatlops for Accelerating 
1 ? ~y i Oil . pi*, R fad w ood lands for -to 

In , y op 5. 1 ion, oho acquisition of superlative stands of redwood 
.. or , reservation, oa atnte parks Is not progressing rapidly enough. 
<: i - " hnv-a Mboat 73,000 acres In federal, state, county and 
.vi^tto rarku of which all but abov.i 10,000 acres is old ^rov/i:^ 

Ae should have an additional 30000 acres to five us a tot>:O. 
o.: about 3.00,000 acres in perks. This would amount to more than 
1 3^ of the ares of remaining stands of old growth. The volune of 
old growth timber in the parks is not known. If similar superla 
tive timber is added to round out the 100,000 acres the volume 
could be as high as 25<& of the remaining stands. 

The addition of 30,000 acres becomes more remote and more 
unlikely, each year unless the acquisition program is atepped up 
quickly ^ The reasons follow. 

Wo used to be able to buy the best timber for #2,5^ P&~ M< 
Similar timber today will cost 10 to l times as much.. Old growt 
t .nber is no longer in surplus. This fact and the decreased 
purchasing power of the dollar operates against us. 

It la more difficult today to obtain large donations. Any 
moiiiGf donated today will buy only a small part of what they 
would, have purchased only a few years ago. If we wait for 
donations at the rate they are coming in the 30,000 acrey will 
never be acquired. Ko timber owner will wait so long. He will 
cut his timber or have it cut by someone else. 

The matching principle, under whioh private donations ure 
matched by State money, is pood as a principle, but as lon- as 
State money is not available until an equal amount of other 
money is contributed the State s dollar is worthless* 

The longer we v;ait to complete the purchase program the 
more money will be needed and the less likely will it be forth 
coming. The day of ridiculously cheap stumpage is overc The 
current price is not yet at its upper limito Certainly it is 
not yet a a high as the price of less superb Douglasflr, sugar 
pine and ponderose pine* 


To accelerate the purchase program I suggest thorough 
of the following: 

1, iixplain to the Legislature the situation as it I* and 
that it Kould be cheaper for the State to scrap the matching 
principle., pass a bond issue of $30,000,000 at once, and complete 
the purchase of the nocessary tracts as quickly as surveys, 



appraisals and negotiations can be completed, {For every $1000 
the State contributes today to match $1000 of pr5.vate money 
were the private $1000 available - the State will have to con 
tribute 2000 or more when private money does become available 
soina years hence. And at that time the private contribution 
will have to be doubled also. Consequently the State would be 
oat not one panny by appropriating $2000 now to moke pur chases 
outright and without private help). 

2, Make our money go farther by a change in the League s 
basic principle under which purchases must be untouched old 
growth. We already have enough primeval park land for scientific 
purposes. A large part of the 30,000 still needed would be 
injured very little, and only temporarily, if, prior to acquisi 
tion and under League supervision, light selective cutting is 
arranged for. In this way we would lose some of the largest 
trees but the areas could be acquired much more cheaply andj. by 
the time they are really needed for public use, the residual 
trees would be grown to greater size and all gaps would be filled 
in. Timber so thinned grows at an accelerated rate. Highway 
strips would be left intact except for dangerous trees. 

The figure of 100,000 acres is my own estimate of a desirable 
completed total program. As far as I know the Save-the-Redwoods 
League has no written program for its guidance or for the en 
lightenment of County officers and private owners who want to 
know and should be told what the League s plans are. The Olmsted 
data should be worked up without delay and made available, even 
if it requires the employment of a full-time assistant* 

The Save-the-Redwoods League has done an outstanding Job in 
acquiring about 60 P 000 acres of redwoods for state parks over a 
period of 30 years. The rate of aoquisltion has slowed down 
significantly. The League cannot maintain its pres,tige if it falls 
down on the Job of completing the acquisition. 

I ask that the President be directed to appoint a committee 
to investigate this matter without delay and report within 3 months 
on the advisability and desirability of the recommendations made 

Etnanuel Fritz 
University of California 

Presented to the Save -the -Redwoods. League Council 
October 23, 1952 



li. .. i. . MI ,iu.. >.rlJ 

iJM. 3. Or. Job : 
Ye-irs, Ukcly To Go 
In "Clerminff" 



r.olph Sayc Firittj V7111 Get. 
Rid Of Official Dis. 

loyal To Him 

* PRATT i facing ouster by 
Governor James Kolph on com- 
p.!ftlnt flt*d ly Rex jflaclf of Sun 
I runclaoo. chairman of the ttU 
for fttry. i*x^iitl^o **v?re.i 
tnry *f Ciiilforii 1 " * i i 1 * * " 
tocUve Annotation and legislative 
!o!>by!nt for Uio Jari;r lumber in- 

The governor adniltlii l to-day 
sk hua re-con\inendd thut 
jPrett. who ho been foronter for 
!".in yoars. be ountod tin the 
. thrvt he ") Inoompoient to , 
the forestry camp unaio- 

\Vhl!o the wovernoi- walrt he will 
tfillt with IJInok und Pratt before 
actSnur on tho fori<r o\tstcr ree- 
ontmondatlon, Kolph H aftcretury 
\rroto e, >M.ei? to th^ dhxjctor of 
nnturnl resouroea last -\.> k request- 
Inj; tbut Pratt b rem-Mw.l. 

The ouMinjr of Prkit. U K tj-an- 
olr. Rolph ald. will be "just 

w beiRlnnJnic of the <:lftnlnff out 
OJ? tbOBe offlclole wtto iiave been- 
heM In fat Jobe from tho prevloun 

mtnlatrnUon but who tre i ld 1.O 
be dlt/lovnl to me." 

It hfts tikcrv two year*. 1 said 
ljih. "td find out who thej* dis 
loyal |ruy RIO, and nmrk m> won! 
I m prolnjj io clcftn em out or they 
will hovw In run to cover. I m Jfo- 
liur to br<s!< uj Uil rliiir." 

Th jfo/PiTu* fan -ly shouted fn 
thux rtuolurlnj: hlmuelf to n^w*)>.- 
pci-nifii who had gatiu-rad In lilx 

(/flU ll to JlUlltlfO Uln Ul tlU IJl OjfVOtJM 

of ilii* |we.rt.9fk*tlon4 h lnj miulii In 
thre<.0iipn> titli iilft K un nflcrinutli 
of thft 4leAAr>. of WMitrr W. f>ir- 

rn.6^, Kn<f fyrnff, 


| he_ projipnoK t find ovit whrtJr 
there 15 i,ny (h t/ them ami if 
JSo io tnka . ppiuiii ittctio- 
1 PUfiiitf /ny trip trvut>t ., 
Iniiitjimn counllvs XJ f last 

n!d the ;roVi?t nor, "mnfly 
/I M: auu .o to me cvajntc 


lie IK huryeiJ with r Kyinj m>Ji- 
tlrn, of hiiVma doAO <\vtylhi:i* pot- 
.<lble to <Jcftt uHilcr Hup.n I., 
Preiitnn for tn /i|>pol %t * :ourt, una 
Ivllh incompfl<n. (n Jt(;;Mir>;;-for- 
le. it fhC" la Uiu <-o*l countlc.v. 

"I novnr hvxxi d nnxthin/ Vtiit pro 
t<):i.< A|;nlna*. Pmit on tho trip, ! 
| though 3 l^vc rvcvivj<l i:ume T*lt- 
-Mu>i iii>vln;f th^l h4 bo rttuinu. 
Black h;ii informed me that 
l.i iiK.oinv*** ^ to du n lte, tht 
. _...Uhtii<;nt nnd uprvlklou nt 
trt forestry ucrntployiiient e.amps 
lth<4 M ltxter and li Hd!\eil t Ki h?. 
| be rimiv>l." 


UTt Jit rCporUd StACk hu!l A oundj. 
t for J ratt * ]>citlon. wtil. li 
. n year, but tho jrovcrnoi- 
knowledge of this. Hr : 
to Imva u oonferenco \\llh 


Kaluln<r hl>( volne to H hliyh pitch. 
the governor doelnrod he l dctcr- 
lnbtl to huve a showdown on 
Uioi< who hnvc Accepted i*\o>- 
fi-om me In itute portions hut \vM 
- now knifing mo in the buck." 

I m KolnR to be the head of tin* 
ni mlnlnti atlon," assorted R o 1 ]> h 

with empliiuls, "and if the evidence 
proves/ Prtt should be fired he 
Wl be flri-d. And I will start In 
iin otherx, too. 

"I m dlsifiict^d w. th these psaJm 
vln^eri who vruio me to my f.ct. 
Kocept /uvors in the form of /n t 
state Jobs thy hold under former 
administrations <nd then knife mo 

"Appointive utate officials 
going .to be loyal to me or I m 
iivr to kick them out of thels- 
JODK. Surely I am entitled to lo- 
alty from nil who hold office at inv 
plensiire. Evci-ybody will azn-V 
to thnt. 

"I have bn tol.l that a lot of 
OfflclaU rd <llloynl to rr* and Tin 
on tholr tt-afl. If I fintf out thr 
rflportd arc true, they will be oiufc. 
ed without crooony." 

Bfnme* Jllaok. 

Pr<itt l*il th entire movement 
brlnjr about hla removal to 
3!ock. Ho said Hlaek hny brn 
R" for him since the Rich- 
. administration. 
He attempted," salt! Pratt, "to 
.mo removed during thr 
administration. He even 
.wnt so fnr SK to go to the ran^~ 
crsnnd attempt to break down my 
organization. Ho became partlca* 
Iii.i-iy obnoxious wt the be^lnntnr 
A: the prftKcnt adminlstrutlon an1 
b*n xnooplnjr around trying to 
oi uomethlnif on me. 

Hears Ouare-r Tolk. 

edc>l on gtt!n; on 
board of forestry and fjot tlit 
rnor a car on the orsnlr.atlon 
of the unemployment ciiinjis. When 
I returned from the Kast In Jan- 
uary After attending a convention 
of the National Association of 
State. Forenters. of which I <im 4 
past prcaldtnt. T heard that I wns 
:o be ourttod nnd tr*nnfiifrrA to 
run the ututo nitymir> ut Davl*, 

"I f no nil nut Vtgi. 3 )npk w*t f 

(man wU w*s >uKin>f tK jtatt- 

rnnt<. i t Koid r 8ictnrf ne 

teH m*. KA /,\t t vvagn i t>>e n>,u, 

f dt rW *i f r 

ovr (he, O)>iMntiop of the j 
.jtatn nurnury. 


"Hleck lo!rt nui h IhoiiK it. N I 
siiild crl mi. W.iKiO u. .veur fur tho ^ 
lull. J/<- au d thut If the inmu-j ^ 
could in, ! fouiul In thn fiiniU off 
ItUc ntaU* ilUUIon of forrst -y. thru 
ftv* would niulin up the dll fi-reiuvf ! 
I out of hU own f mills. 1 pn<*imifl hi 
nv-unl the fumU of lh (ullforn it 
r.> el Froti-ctlv* AniooUtlon, ef . 
whloh lie In Hecrrtary." . 

Pmtl. 5uld thai on Octoh.-r . filh 
Dan H. Blood, Btnte dlrenor ufi 
.-. ilurnl rej-ourc-B. received H let-: 
! fioni Wil Um A. Smith, pnvjte. I 
rrretary to Governor Kolph, Btst- 
[lug fhnl arrangement* were bcin^ 
I made with the Htxie! of for- 
entry to jive him xnolher posi 
tion. Thin waa followed hy a *eo- 
ond letter from Si:il*h on October . 
ii tn, InNtructlmt Blood to remove: 
Prutt from office. Ulood at that, 
<lme I* staled to have nuked for a { 
personal letter from the governor i 
embodying those inntructlons. Thu 
lett*r ha not been written BO far 
an la known. 


Sonfleli. , a Umlter ar>- 
for the tale board t 
, i^iiaJlrjitlon, I* aUited to be fh| 
nin that V.lurk vmnt to buve ao-; 
pointed n bUile foreat^r. Scuftuhl > 
WBK fonnerly norrUry of the Hum-; 
.boldt Jledwond Association nnd 6i/ 
ftunner of Kureka. 

Pratt denied he had engaged in 
any politics ngNinut Judge Preston, 
and added thut hi* had nclusJly 
worked for JudRe Preston during 
the campaign and had nuKPTe-ntrd to! 
the men In the organisation tntt| 
they vote for Prerton. He ail<ldi 
the. governor s charge of dolaxr poli-i 
tics uRatiiAt Prevton was rather i 
amazlnc. In view of the fuels. 

Aconsntlon Denied. 
One accusation agalrut Pratt ) 
that be went Into ilrndoclno Covn-l 
tv In the same automobile with 
Justloe John F. Pullen. Hei v.^orv 
ouily denied thin report und AIJ 
that the men on thli> trip Into V:n-l 
doclno County were a reinen jk- 
ilv of tho division of parU* and a 
reoresentath e of the houtlnt; com- 

I have extended every co-opera 
tion to Bluck," said Piatt. "la tho 
oneratlon of the unemployment re 
lief camp*. 

When I returned from the Eaati 
In January, I found thut the oper-> 
uUon of thene eampe undnr Black 
had gotten Into a maas. I Instructed! 
the men In my organization to ex 
tend every eo-oparatlon ponlbla to 
tklni? thetie camps a succrns and 
it was through uie erYorti of th.j 
Diamber* of my organ Izutlon that | 
the unemployment ca^ips were put 1 

"I think that I c*n run tbU Job 
* state forter as well es any- . 
body .eMe In California and I In 
tend to put up a fljjht for It, The I 
governor has given rae personal &<- 
uranr,e on at least three occasion* 
i that my work Is and ha.t been 







w*Wfl^W3n?wTji L, 

All A "Mistake" 8*71 lolpfc 

At Storm Against Proposed 

Action Takes Shape 



Bam Anthr 
planation Of 

it *> a*r *, Ufa** fr 
t*ia Mite* ahgnt Covenaw 
Ralpfa gotag ta. *1to Mate For**t- 
r M. B. Pmtt 

"A caee M mtoUKMl UantMr." 
cald fh* governor "Jt must have 
been lomebody who looked Ilk* 
Pratt who campaigned la the north 
ern part of the *tate knocking; Jus 
tice Hugh JL. Preston. 

Tou know. I ve alwmya liked Mr. 
Pratt. H will stay oa the Job." 
startling nte.asr 

TeUrday morning. returning 
from trip through ln northern 
count!**, the governor pounded hU 
desk and fairly ehouUel MM daaun- 
rlaUoit of the vetenui ti for*t- 
F before tk* . Ms ona*g*d 
him with "dlaloyalty- to th* Rolph 
I administration. and Inefficiency as 
{heart of the division of forestry. 

Yeaterdny af tei noon, the gover 

nor * wrath cooled quieUy. Tix- 

"dlnloyalty" rharired to Prmtt wa 

found to be baaed upon the arMvi- 

, tlei of "someone who looked Ilk* 

Pratt* It waa emrgxUrt It might 

have been Charle* K Bill*, cam 

paien manager (or Judge John F. 

And the Inefficiency charge djr- 
solved into thin air when Charles 
J. Dunwoody, director "f tha con 
servation department of the ** 
fhftnU>er Of. coinmn. .v* 
governor son* idea of tn, tor;i> 
which would break ovw his ad 
ministration if he removed the 
tate forester. 

"I can produc* r*pre*ntatlve* of 
aoo organlaatlons who will testify 
thnt Pratt muit b rttalaed for 
thr prolrdlnn of the fttatv H for- 
oi*t>." nii.l1 Dun woody 

Ji tcmiwn. to t?l ft 

f (S32. 

a*** HftKIIng H0g. 

i * ov -nor Midden decision 
-taln P ai* .< hi* rigorous 
,r>.| o> .fi"rtu> n> nuu< at.on of a 
,c* hour- fx i"i figuratively left 
H!xrord Hl. l>. .-hnirman of the 
-tate bonrd forrn ry and a Umi 
l>er r. inimnv i..l>hvi-t, "holding the 

v. .r H..IH Ka*d hl attack 
,, .iv -i^-irr >ipon com- 
:. :,. .^.1 with him by Black, 
cd nv 1 " uninr* he had heard on 
.,!, r ..ti<TT> Hp. Pratt threw th* 
hint -n< i" 1 " Black s 1P as th 
iiin. nitiion of a neralstoilt attempt 
v, y n:. k to *t him out as staW 

IB "I/ovflfesfc" 

yesterday, the (tovernor 
i\^1 in Pratt *nd Black for a 
-rmnd r.y ""n.l" affair, which 
w. ly (i< velri|i"1 Into a lovefest. 
. .v, c ,-onclu:- n of which he an- 

jnced . 

Mr Prati )** convinced me ot 

, loyalty i- my * dnli 
m I hav f^ ind upon 
JjSn th.t ch-i^e. of 
mad* agaia*t him are 
It waa t>rh*blv oa* of 

M no 


m a-ured 

.tate labor camp P^amfor 
corolne Winter will P>c***V No 
lnefflct*ncv wan proven to . * 
UM 1 M* Pratt He wa. co- 
menrted to me hv J ohn 

Park In S^n . 

Thn-ati-n<d (Storm. 
Re-ortH th( 1 tatt wa to "go 

Ion ala w> <""" th Rolpn ?f" 
! family .tlrrc^ up a "*" 

In favor of the man who had 
tha -St. ftwrster for OfUen 
. Ttjrecalled tb Uma when 

TconTlnued On Pag* Two) 


(Continued From Pa One) 

virinor Friend W. Rlchirdaon at. 
tempted lo i amove him aaveral 
I year* ago. 

"I can pioduoe 1,00 wttneaMB, 
I who will Uetlfy to Pratt a afflcienoy 
;to every on* that Blu- t ran pro. 
duo* to SS.y ha la Inefficient," aald 
Dunwoody. He mentioned aevera] 

atate-w rte or:anlsatloni 

Th guvrino? Mini he had r*- 

calved nuinriou^ irltRiann urging 
Pratt a rutenUon, amuna- them be 
ing on* from Erneat O. Dudley, 
Bxster, a member of the board of 

Letter- Dtaappwu. 

One anvle of th* Pratt oaa* waa 
the myaterloua dlaappearance of 
the tw., Itllrra rni by William A 
Smith - HFI mtiiry to Ouvei 

nm Rolph. to Dan H. Blood, director 
of natural raaourc**, on* Inatruot* 
Ing Blood o fir*" Pratt, and th* 
other atal ng arrangement* w*re 
beln(( made to place I mtl In Hn 
other ata<e poutUam. 

Blood aaid "the latter* at*t h*V 
fare ma now." atooreUry Omltfc 
aid: "Blood hn t the letter*, hai 

Olhr Bunion 
Th* atorm around Prtitt s heart 
revived ruinnra of certain intereita 
"gunning" for Jam** M. Bennett. 
oil and ga* uonaervatlon attorney 
for the department of natural re 

Oil companies have not been In 
agreement with B*nnett i method 
of MUuic. iig the act. Governor 
Rolph Inatructcd Earl Oilmor*. 
head of th* Ullmor* OH Company, 
to investigate th* matter again. 

Governor Roloh doea much of hi* 
tlylnc in the Gilmore Oil Company 
plaM. l|atad by Ko*coe Turner. 
ftftllfortfia a "KeMMky cotel," 

PraM rww one*sa. 
A* an aftermath of ycrterday 
actlvlllea. Black announced to-day 
he would pa to Pratt all control 
of th* atate lahni camp program. 

Black htadK<l th* late labor 
camp proxram lant Winter and waa 
to do ao airain this year, but after 
Governor Rolph aid yeoteiday that 
Black a Inefficiency charx** agaln<t 
Pratt weie n.u urov*n Biaek made 
th* following BiHUment; 

"AltbouKh I will remain cbalr- 
aaan of th* California labor camp 
oOflpaillU* and will handle what 
ever bdfln*a com** before the 
;oinaiittee. I hall tuin over to Mi. 
PraM tii. i umiUcte opera lon. ad- 
rnln -! i jtir.ii. surulv pur-ha^jnK and 
uicitlion i> ii. i- . .ruin- 

MMM Turn* Over. 
"Since I40U.OOO ha* been made 
avai, able l>\ the committee and a 
general plan of operation ha* o*en 
set loi iii It la not probable that the 
comaiittee will meet axaln before 
Jaauarv Int. when the committee 
tnav wish to prevent emergency 
slaiatlon to the leg-lalature." 

Pratt said th* dlvlalon nf forevtry 
at wlllinK to asKtime th* burden of 
th* entlie iiroKi-nm and that a pro 
trrmm of uriwerlnra will h* an 
iocinrf.1 lalvi 


Sacramento Bee 

jNew lVie.nix;. 
"Forestry Board Frets In 
Deadlock On Pratt Oust 





remove Pratt. . __ - -- 

At the vme time B. C McAllister or t(vmorroWj ln advance 

of Piedmont. H. in. 


the dlvUlon o 
cast tli,-lr vote, for 
U Che -natter 


And Professor Frltr. wiw 

. M. and for three , boui 

iMnfk telephoned from tho gnvcr- 
.; ,.,, ott | cfl to the tlir( nMmhm 

Appointed only V. .dnoeday night. |JmirnoJ . 
Fritz, a professor i ihe University | Th( . cost of brlnelnr th board 
of CAllfornla. Inimi -cd he found I ,nrnib hre wa. compu( 
hii Initiation Into .friical pol* ^- Mcrr , ftn ,.. S hlllnlh. 
quit* a bit diffe Wt than ho hd| Thc KOVfrn or took coffnlMnce of 
expected from tKt. ojict of his , th,; controversy lat nlKht. by d- 

.io iiiqu...^. whoilicr he thoufihl 
ho was appointed for the purpose 
of rrlvlnR the Pratt ouster forces 

majority "n fli 

minlMtratlve problems then 

If ihcso difficult!*/! become to In- 

"I m 

Frlotulh Jlully. 

i" oust Pratt 
onsorvnllon oil 
. : .y to th sup 
.d enter. 

the governor 

Efforts by IU.-.. 
aroused friends u 
jover the slate to 
port of tho btaic 

They have bo.iii,,.- 
to take eteps to prevent the re 
moval of tho mini who organized 
tho division of foi-citry seventeen 
years ao and hos served a* I 
ihoad evtr since. 

Cattlemen K::c5{ Pratt, 
CullfornU lives. ock men came 
Utroncly to the d< IOIIKO of the stnto 
Iforostcr. ch.irirlnff the ouxter move- 
menl IB fo.itcrcd by ihe private tlm- 
bor Interests. 

The CnHfornla Cattlemen* 
ind the 

Y</u can oy 111 Use a - 

He made It clear his remarks! 
were nov directed specifically t 
ths forestry board, but at all state | 
boards and commissions In ten-- 

Merrtam said as far as be know* 
T rutt It MBtlsfiictory. The fovernor 
denied eliarc * "InilUr to ihose 
filed airwinst Frntt by lck two 
yeiirs ngo have ben received by 

Xordenbolt Lenvea. 

To complicate things even fur i 
thcr, Gcore D. Nordenholt, btats 
director of natural resources, who 
his the final appointlns power 
over the st.ite forester. iit Sacra- a short time before the, 
1 forestry board seilon. ( 
reported by his office to i 

for}. "-Yon cun put 

TOOT ywr, .,.- W. I . Wlnt. seo-Jwdd Member 
rfttory ol tho wool prowors proup. 
"Blac i 1 secretixry of t!io Ciilfor- 
nla liorefit rroteetlvn Axuoolivtlon. 
nn orjvnt>>r.ntlon of thn private tlm- 
b?i Jntert who tuo opposed to 

"We have every iunltorl 
the governor e-n<l d" not believe 
he would permit ^Ifuh Interest* 
to dictate his n<-u..u ." 

If It l Ula- k s lniii!n>B to rt- 

mn e Pratt, he * |ir.rtteourfOl, 

for lie oummonert n" h<r mnetln.. 

^j v. i rt Dus i rt I i ^ ^ t . ^ 

i" 1 Ocvrnor Marrlam mid ho win I Anthony 
(ninh4r |<i[bo*k 

Professor Frit*, *rho teaches for-: 
ostry at the University of Callfor-| 
nla, showed up first ut ths fores- 1 
try bourd office* for the meeting. 

Many IMiono Culls. 
Then lie besin rerriv!..:; tlc- 
jihor o cnlls. One came from the 
1 rnnr s office. 

Pioti ^wjr Frit* tlton butlnrted 
ihiH isineoiit tlRht around his ne.c n, 
>i.:k U up his brief C.MC fpd hlke.1 
lin ths Hotl .Senn or (O*W 

Alt"l what hln futoi * . .Inr *r. 





San Francisco Chronicle December 15, 1934 


o r .^is to rest, 
Board Votes, 
Pratt Ouster 

Ask* Appointment of W. 

R. Schofiehl as Ilia 

Successor; Climax 

;f Long B.Utle 


I Tilt 

Board fit Fores , ff. ::h lour, 
t il seven members in attendance.! 
t*.iy voted ir> remove Merritt B. j 
p-t.u as Sute Forester and to ap- , 
I IK, hit \v.;:ia.-n R. 3chofie!d o( Sac- ; 
ramcnlo In his place. 
. This action Ls in the form or a 
-ecnmmendalio.i, which now joes to 
i Oe*;r,T D. Kordenholt. is Director ! 
-rf Natural Resource*.- who has the i 
final power in oiwnUs.n j the present 
, sute Poreaier or hiring a new one. ; 


The board s action today climaxes 

a lone battle between Pratt and 

i ft. Kexford Black, the chairman of 

jttM board, which had Its inception 

(four yean ago. Pratt had served 
for 17 yean. 
Kad Pntt remained M BUM 
. Poreeter until December W. he would 
t have gained permanent civil service 
I status under UM new civil service 
tot He has served 17 years a* State 

leak jtatod that this wae UM 
reaaon for the board s action today. 


Threw member* of the board 

atoHRt and bad previoualy sent a 
tetter to Governor Prank P. Meniajo 
<aWMrty proUMloc acainat UM 
metttf eaU aad adding that they 
vwld iwotoat angr action that WM 


TRe ntetabait la atundaocc. be- 
fidi Black, wf re K. Walton Hedcea 
Of San JUkO Butl-tr : Swift Berry 
of OaaitBo ftod WL.;.-..U j Boice of 
Lamport, who wai appointed o 
ttM koard iMt oifbt by Uie Oovtr. 
er. The abMot membcn ware H S 
OUman f Le Anf. *. Emeet 
Dudley of iH III i m| 6. A. Me- 
Allauuur of Pladmoni. 

Black atatad that the four board 
members - - ted themselves toute 
sMpe to .jus employment for Pratt 
to frait*7 wark. very probably M 
director of UM State Aureery at 


__ JPf%tt 

and dereltetioc of 

m& him aterplr or 

of hto antlnsM. aad stated 

eatryM MrtMH a^veatiOM, includ- 

BBipeoytof taWMlafttv %o ft^bt ftosa 
aad f ostnt tMk trudes ID f%b*- 
to* ttrea. Ha fltaUd he WM dereB a ! 
In not charglnj eerUln lookout man 
who had through nef licence per- 
niitted fires to start and spread. 

Gchofleld now tt adminlatraUv* 
entlneer for the 8UU Board of 
legalization. He is a (raduau of 
the University of Idaho school of 
Jonptry. and has been In toreet 
Vlah and Monu*. 



Sacramento Bee December 17, 1934 

H. .:<> 

hat teen 
.not to Pratt." wii- 
ti. at I r.itl *;$ 


" > 

K*t * 

pniurt la* n, 

(Howl "*- 



c <-,.. if ti.nk 

l.-nir tlif chare*".. i:<Tl.i.-- 
uc t)* .ml )|4bu4iic4 : >yl , 
of ! iif nr^ fi .htrrfc oi,ir -fmo < 

n **tfcM 

v.H J 

r*nry-v\ $ Fr^.t <% fof-eoUr and 
tc in ^ star a bur* nia- 
loiiiy i... .ho bo^rU far U. firit 
time hi taking suto oacnp William 
J Hulc* <- L*fc*port 

Hnlra ayaolntad to tha board 
r rid ay night fc Governor Marrlam. 
only a faw hear* Wore tha meet 
ing tlmr 

Th* aaaalnn si urday waa a heat 
ed affair, lirld hri .ud clOHd door*. 
tlvea -,1 the pro**, ware 
by B.I order Unurd li) 
Ulack. the newipartrr rm-u l>Mor 
forced to grt tbatr IxfomwUnn 
from words lliut pourcU tbrough 
Ule Uinnom.* My. 

Bitter Word- flrw <rt the m*>:t!r>* 
bl ick :<: tnat two yt*. i -s keo fife 
nflercd Pri t the pror rf - t OD that 
If h( woalti rmlpn he would put 
blm In oh*if* at the etalo iiurtiry 
at 1900 a rnnrih. He claimed Prat; 
at.Tud to (t and liter broke hU 

taM farMter Mild. "I mrrtly kalU 

I WOilld COQkUliT it." 

Black Inicrn.pteJ w 1 . h 

"You did no auch damned thing!" 

Pratt M. ite^s titatenirnt 
Alter tb* ni*vtlr.x Pratt mad* th* 

In Smaklni; t ih bou<<4, lk<k ( 
:a.k>d cold -ui k*y. If : r.ft r- 
malnd In rr: t. he would bat 
bl*nk*t*d Into civil i*rvlc M*| 
would not permit that If he could 
help It 

SrnUvn >-*nr* on UM Job MMMf 
liolfclnc to him. f 

-WeVe . t to Ml rlfht aowT I* 

TelU Of rn* Kfforl 

v! w cf lh * Prott of th. 

ni.wb.r, of iho bord not 
pr**Bt, I will carry on until no 
t tCU4 toy Nor:*nhcK ae4 
br Gv^n\j. &UrrUn. Tbar* . 
^m*O>lnc d***"" dow a aboot thu 
Oi I don : un< ertnd 

> brtU^A achofleld k* b*n 
inlntc4 brcaiM Black fool* he 
will b more attcBtlv* to Uia tum- 
* lutrr-t IHMI I have boon. 

"It kM i>i-n mv policy to con- : 
" r nnt only Umbr bint vter- 

on th* joh 

"Two ~rf eg*," Black aald. ! 
ttt#4 to haya. Mr. Pratt ramoved. 
Bu* iiw (Jlforma Btata Okaratx-r 
.,( O>ntmw*i nirncd tha heat on 
4ovr*er aW)**. Governor Bolph 
MM wC *e>d ytaldad and vfr. 
rraM fae^a* * tk, job Aad a*m 
:ha .t cUm^r ef rommarer I* 
tmintag k* fciajt n Oe>vrfar Mar 

Oea* tnoMMit* 

Blank eiti *eveMl trivial Inol 
U att**fi to nr*r* hi* 
of uMffietaaWT aad dr*n 


"J tow M-. Ptt ahoul thnt." 
*at4 Black, >at be dM ot 1la- 
chane th* to"ot h*BMIUrjr a* 
he aVould hive dM. TliiH I ba- 

(a :ha a eantime. powerful mtar- 
uii TtUUly interaitcd in fire pr.-- 
work la California r mov- 
ta th* daf*na* or the state for 

At tha NortlietB Oall/urni:v Fir*-, 
*nfi\ t AaeootKtlon laaetlng to An- 
bu.-n yt*rday, a resolution v.a 
udi.pted unaninioualy urging OOV-.T- 
Jkaf Men i im to keep Fratt In tfc*- ! 
t<rrcc. Auothor ouu u>ma D/rff- 
tr Nordaohclt to ratuia the, 
foieclcr tei aen-lce. 

Reaxtlutlan I* Given. 

Th* raiolutlbn to Ucrrlaa da-, 

"Certain Interact* In th* etata aw, 
aklrooa of making a change In the 
ffce of ttate faractar for their 
own telfUh culna." | 

la, a.dt:raaing th* gathering, 1 
wKiih gav* htm a tremandr.ui ova- Pra; 1 . aaiJ It u qu*a:k>nabi* 
wr.c .her Haturday * ar.*etine wa* a 

AUo nu..k ur 

r-n^r-i Utr eulomobHr to all 
! nx etliijc f a vawen * 

.U? x KS 

Tj4rryi rf cammo; E . Waltm 
Hutf|* or Oan Juan Bcxurmc^ ar.f. 


car h 

n.e I 


n t J .h 
U> u <0 th 


He cf.f*d tha tt* f.u;*r 
hU failure to 


Selfish Interests Seek 
To Crucify M. B. Pratt 

A T a rump seeelon on Saturday 
""of the stale board of foretry. 
attended by only four ot Iti seven 
mraber, the ouUr of M. B. Prutt 

It. nfftre (or seventeen y*tr. 
would have been blanketed Into 
civil service under the constitu 
tional provision overwhelmingly 

California s conscientious and aM i Approved by the people at the la*t 

tat* fore*tr, was recommended to j election. 

Goorge D. Nordenholt, director of i Thus the people * will U flaaeUd 

Ut state department of natural re- I by the political poilUr*. and 

1 their intended victim I* on* man In 
!ih stats Mrvto* who merited every 
lifeguard which civil senri** could 
i throw around him. 


The prime mover 1* this shameful 
action 1s one B. Rexfr.rd Bis 
secretary ot ths California Fore< 
Protective Association an orjruTv 
liatkm that promote* the piogram 
of the private timber interests of 
UM stato and chairman of the for 

final outo.<rm lies In the 
at Oovevnor frank f. Her 

ri* has re/wed to bow i 
te the will of theee Interests, M. B i 
Pratt hi atated to walk the political j 
yttak while his place 1* filled by 
0* who will be the yea man of 
eertaln timber baron*. 

The manner In which this nefarV 



i tarn. 

It Is his word tn*t will ratify the 
indefensible and unpardonable ao- 
uon of the state board of forestry 
or that will *OOUh thl* oomtaenptj- 
hlc plot to sacrifice an able state 
official to the entmoalUe* of a*- 
ish private mtererrts. 

To claim that the final decision 
la up to the state director of net- 
out business wa* concocted tind | urs! resource* fool* not *vea UM 
brought to fruition wrote a new low children in the kindergarten grades. 
to the annals of political- chlcanrry j This director hoM* hi* office at 
T>i. meeting Itself wa* manlpu- > i he pleasure of the governor. Hoi* 
laietf In *uch a fashion as to make responsible to the governor for all 
It Impractical If not impossible for bis actions. And whether his de- 
the friend* and ntpporter* of Pratt i clslon 1* to be for good or I", the 
to be prevent jettisons of California rightly and 

Nor are the people of Callforn.a I properly will hold the governor re 
ft* deej and buad M U be obllvl- ispoaalUU therefor, 
cms t* UM faet that the fourth 

tkftt UM 
rot- which made pOMthl* th* < 
tioe fcewltl* to Pratt wa* east by a 
Lake County ros^. itastlly nam o 
the board by G- *rnor Frank T 

The whole buioe*s reeks of uc 
derhandeJ poltins ana eon,-.- 
acy to get rid of s man who*e orly 
crime has hrn -o work Talthfu!ly 
and fearlessly for the 
of California s frrest*. 

Thl action is made the more rp- 
rehenlble by the fact that it w* 
taken with malicious intent just 
five days before Forester Pratt, 

U. B. Pratt should be retained 
In office. 

His reoord, hi* high sen** of pub- 

, iir senrlos, hi* devonon to the 

. rv ple of conservation, and hi* 

; ref>.,ital to aocept dictation from the 

^strucUonUt* have m\d him *f. 

.1 . siuahle public servant, on 

. the people of CsJIfornla de- 

nand shall stny as t fornstnr 

Governor Merrtsm. It ls up to 


What are you going to do, cru 
cify M. B Prtt or rep- 1! *te this 
rank attempt (o play p.. .cs with 
ithe forests of California 

srn.u. . 



Sacramento Bee December 17,1934 




PI an rw w- -v L 

oLALS. nhi h&i 

NlTlAK llini. 1/11% Ig 

i personal nr.a\ 
,"em Blnrk K pnrt. lilank 
s Lth* timber lnurrM<. 11 the 

MAMA M/ M.-v r .lllfsll.r. 


I Professor, Who Refused To * 
| Catspaw On Board, Telia 05 t 
Unfair Procedure 

McClalcby X^w* papers Service) 
SAN KHANCIl-iCO. Doc. 17. Pro- 
lessor Eroanuol Fritz, ammclato pro- 
fruor of forest) y of the Unlvomity 
of California, .o-day vigorously de 
nounced S. Kex. ord Black of San 
Fr&neineo, tho friend who obUIncd 
him an appointment on the ntato 
board of forlry, for attempting to 
us him ns a catipaw In Block s 
persona oanr.-alr.n to ouvt SUtc 
Pororter M. B. Pratt 

deoJnrrd tlir.t a Inr as h 

ftAfT of tfta California Forst Coi- 
fit<KCtvn Afsorlntlnn. Hot t!n< Major- 

U concerned, It ;>o lonjrnr it of pri 
mary Importniice whether or not 
Vrit s otutr by the bo.ird Snttir- 
day 1* approved by director of 
Natural J-VK>;ircfts Goorffo B. Nor- 


real n.nenUon Is 

\v them mid I know th mor " 
lo not cnre paftlrnlavly* 

allns under the 
of a for^-try codo tliat i far 
more rlglil hmi any re<iulwet 
Imposed by (he *tntR. 

"I rejrard Pratt ts nn honest .ini! 
enpablo ofriciai. There K " qurs- 
tlon of whether ho In th high 
irrad* man for thw .^rowir-s jfc but 
that I do not Know. I want \ > oo 
fo(r. It i not lair to ouchro a man 
out Of his job without & irir or a 
hsarlnc before the boar.t There 
laagpncral ftollng amon^ foitftei-* 
that Block hn Pr.xtt MO 
much In the pt us to tlo Pv.itt s j 
hnnde mid make his work Innf cct> 
lv. . 

.Procedure I Improper. 
*K Pratt la not th oomjvifont 
ninn thnt the tnt<! forester .ihoutd 


which took .place between 
uM&ty and Thursday. . 
7rite WM appointed to the board 
lay by. Governor Frank F. 
int. b"ut.c\ Thursday, bafftre 
ewen utet cworn in, notified the 
governor thU he could not accept 
> Eod*n J.i Given. 
^Ivc* ^/|K r,i the reaiton: 
O llckl/ perceived wiuit Jllocl; 
1*JM 6l"in io do. He \va work* 
tey frlCfvlNlUp anvl my conft- 
. Je W Wnk, to o me w H orrf- 
Ayr a(tJnrt Pratt. I wiu> wUUn? 
to *ftr*f- *n the board, when the 
ten* offered me, a a 

jto tnftki. nrtlon dlfflciJt Tiip bf.itt 

torofesor Issued a tatemnti or( r rtn ir. i itlou concerned to have an 
aMeribing: all thfl clroum*tuttcs 3 ppportxtnity to present their cane 
ttirouadfn* b<* brief entry into aD(1 tn conduc t on oncn comi^titive 
poUtios and hi* *tldn exit, all of exf.ailiwtloa In which Prntt coiUd 

corr.r-oto with the rest on an equal 
basis. a, 

"A for William 3. Schofteid, the 
admlnUtrative engineer of the 
board of equalization, who. was rec 
ommended by th majority of t. ie 
forestry board Saturday for Pratfi 
job, I have nothing for or aipUnkc 

Frltr. hnrtnjr Jtotton hU 

|>ra(nt npalnst I lack s mel.joil* of 
domination off hl chest, t,n\A ha 
Wdntfl to he entirely fatr to Gover- 
sioy itlorrlam nd inftUn it olnor 
thnt the governor kpperuntl.v U 

lntf no nctivo part In the battlo. 

xa .A, however, that xonio for<*t- 
cr Jsel tha ^ovcmor hnu not 

oJ w!nn, nnd I hop our 

fr) ndjl>lp tvll] not Vw , ffi ardi*41 out of h! way to ice that Pratt to ! 
InoldV.iit, But X will not,e<Tlt fair d*u. 

bn u,d In thnt wy._ 
jtot do for a friend 
mo to do, . 

lattfr.. Of Bnlng Fair. 

Having the whola Btate forestry 
[ situation dominated by one man 
ar.1 to m * distinctly 


. _ of. forestry la Citiift.mi. I 
fr no brtrfor Pratt arid aloo 
hav. nothlnfe affalnnt 
.=iace>0r. It Id jmt 


. a matter of 

taAz and preventlntf the whole 
.forestry situation in tb (Ute from 
jt*6parctlEl by th arol>ltion 

board keptin 


not mtt Jor 

Sxater Eankcr Hits 
Bkc!c For Dictation 

(r-*cCInt<-".<> Xowspapors Service) j 
EXETER (Tulare Co.), Doc. 17. I 
Erne -t Dudley, Kxetcr banker and 
a member of the state bo,ird of 
forostry, sees in the diatnlFual of 
State Foretter M. B. Pratt the as- 
sumptldn of dictatorship by 8. R. 
Black, board chairman and aecru- 
tary Of the lumberman* aarnciation. 

"I cannot 
the mcthodn he 
He b&s 

with Black In 
Dudley *ald. 

<UUtor for 


Sacramento Union June 13, 1936 


In Queen 

. .-;: - * 

From Whfeaker Ui4 Hor 
- tempi* to Ou*t M. ; B, 


UM of Helen 
Uajt to Mt 
ooth^rn California, 

matter *h 

Air S^uidrom 
Block -CM War TVut 

.*tmy torch 
fea4 r 

iOM tO U90M 

Plan Proposed 




ffotec from a. A. 


1936 , pp. 3-12 

LtUr fro 8* H. MeDaaiels, Chairman of Columbia 
River Section, stating thnt * special committee 
Of the section will tudy Black case with an eye 
to<iuete pr >tecti-u of the individual 
from unf <> intoi} or hasty iction. 

Chapman * answer was in two ,viris as follows! 
Procedure iu Constitution , 
Procedure <~txially follows J 

1) Procedure iu Constitution ,md By-laws; 

Charges were ^iynwd by svn people~.ChfcDman ssys 
names are wit-n*il an<l \.ll pue^Res (including 
Black s) have r.en wrong. 
Charge* presented to 3. 4. P. January 28, 1935 

1) Black secured a position on the State Board of 
Forestry ty politic.-.! monn, and <>fcted chair- 





man at request of Uolph for the purpose of 
getting Pratt dismissed. 

He tried without the sanction of the Board to 
get Governor Rolph to dismiss Pratt "inoom- 
petency and political activity. "--Governor 
thought that he had the approval of the Board. 
Black has discredited Pratt to his supervisors, 
to the public, and to subordinates. 
Black has usurped th authority or trie state 

About the saree as number four 
He failed to call meetings for the Board of 
i ores try usurped the r>ero?Htives of the 
5tte Bo.^rd. 

tfhen the initiative was won to put the State 
Forester under the nrotection of Civil Service, p , 
Black tried to r*t the Board of Forestry to 
dismiss hia in the interim, wnich Dlau<c could 
have done with the new Board member Fritz s 
vote. But fritz caught on and w uld not accept 
the appointment. 

Note: B^ard 
mombt-rs intent 

dismissal were 
S. Rerry and 

Chapman, with Black s okay, sent a co<^ ot t,> e 
charges to CFPA directors. Swift Berry .ma Mr. Moir 
accused Chapman of "broadcasting the cnaivea^. 
Chapman say that /(lack Vave me no names of persons 
to write to corroborate his statements made in his 
reply idafentsej of July 18." However, Swift Uerry and 
Richard C1^M sent $a fro-Biakrtc 

^- ; - : 




Votes frm 3. A. T. Affairs (continued) 

The case was sent to council on September 20., 100 
pages single spaced. Each member read it, mailed 
in his vote, and mailed the Case testimony to another 
member (There were only four conies.). The verdict 
on November 20th was * tpelied. El;:ht members out 
of nine on the Council voting yes. (Kotok voted no.) 
(Friti was on tne Council at this Lime.) Charges 
number five, six, and one were thrown out because 
tney required proof of motives. 

Black s answer to the ohargesi He had requested 
that Chapman have onur^os publinhsu in the Journal 
but that this could not be done because of Black s 
attack on Pratt in ni* own defense. 

"*-> I 

Chapman says that lilacK, Berry, and E. l. Allen 
were the only ones who made attempts to tin Black s 
actions with hi- motives, to insist o* trying the 
state forester as pnrt -f the Black 

Chapman defends the countercharge that the U. S. 
Forest Service men wan tod Pratt retained, becaune 
"lumbermen" wanted him fired; Chapman .says that 
Berry intimated tne opposite point of view. 

September, 1935 Investigation ended 


SAP Affair* March, 1936 Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 19-20 

"Petition in the C*B of S. Rexford Black" 
From th California Section ind the two Pacific 
lorthwest sections. (December 12, 1935 Petition) 
Council agreed on January P5 to grant a review. 

Charges against Chapman ware ai^/r.-.l by Swift Berry, 
R. A. Colgan, Clyde S. Martin, T. K. Oliver, and 
W. R. Schofiald. As a result of Chapman s work in 
the Black case, the following charges were presented 
to Society vlo-presldnt S. T. Dana on September 21, 
1936s The undersigned herewith present. . .charges 
that ri. H. Chm ojcOi. . . AC ted with conduct unbecoming 
a professional forester and in a manner deliberately 
unethical for H m^r^bpr o-f the Society, in connection 
with his handling of the S. Kexford Black charges 
by masking public stit^ments tending to reflect upon 
the reputation of other foresters so us to prejudice 
their moans of darning i Linelih od, without at the 
sane time "iving equal publicity to defense state 
ments. " Specifically, the most Importfint charges 
centered around a letter which Chanman had printed 
in the SAF Affairs (February, 1336) in response to 
a request for information concerning t :e Black case. 
Part of the charge involved Chapoiun s alleged unethi 
cal mention of Swift Berry and E. T. Allen in this 

Dana notified Chapman cf the charges and the two 

corresponded concerning how tne mutter should ce 
handled. Chapman, ^robubly desirinr to clear his 
own name, wanted to have the charges investigated. 
One opinl m :v-inpt ir-vr btiwation wus CK:. t by Col. 
Greeley, wh<- w .a CV-KI ro. in of a Society 
which was revlwtnp t e Black caoe. 

On Poveirber llth JWna s^Dmitt^vi u ttemorandum to the 
Couiioil with c^ljot vuncurtiin. t .o Chapuian case. 
This ballot detruirt* thit J-ir-t would investigate 
the cade, wnioh was in line with the ouciety*e by 
laws. Various t proacr. -s to the case were offered 
and it was suggested trimt Uiscusaion shou^U be o 
an to the g*ner*l proc". ( res which .^lio^id ^<.: followed 
in such cases. 

from the berinnirv Ut^n - <ttackeu i;,e cm on two 
levelai that of Chaplin ? yuilt in thl* particular 
case, and th*t of tie general problem of how to 
handle such cases in t future. Uana n report to 
th Council md the buKot on March 19, l j?7 illus 
trated this division. The Council rfi.-ond*d by 

^^r--^^7 ^^^^ : : f "; " rci| 


- :. >*- - 

unaaiaoualy rotiag Oaapaaa aot guilty and accepting 
Dana s auggastioa far ahaages in tna by-laws to meet 
such cases in tha fvtttra. 

Dana based bis deoiaioo aone*rning Chapman *s inno 
cence on several points. One of the major issuaa 
was the propriaty of th* latter which Chapman had 
had printed ia tha tjf mfTllfif Daaa Justified this 
aot as foliowsi 

Opinions may wall diffar as to tha extent to 
which publicity should be carried in easso of this 
sort, but that tha Prasideat and tha Council have 
the rl^ht to make their fltdirrs, with the reasons 
therefor, aa generally krvwn as they think vise 
seoc.n to ire < .-.d* wt .tbl^. In the rr^so^t instance, 
it Boer^ed rf-uior.^;!? tc ruae that other sections 
would alar- the CoJunMu River Section s de55ire for 
further infonaa .lon, P-* hnd <\r oc. jn rirht t.hersto." 
Dana fel: :h>it Chapman h d not actrd unethically 
in Bl.-.c e tfef^nr-e becnusc the letter had 
merely contained the chnr/^ec wl th neither opposing 
or agreeing *ruat:nts. Fi .rthermore, the defense 
contained numerous unfavorable references to Pratt. 

A further specific charge accused Chnpnan of making 
derogatory romurka concerning tvo men, who had de 
fended Mlack. Dana termed the Ir.n^u^e used as 
*Ui;fort ^iate" and would have preferred to see the 
msflmsa of people omitted fron a discussion of prla- 
ciplse. However, he felt that the statement could not 
be termed unethical, since it did faithfully portray 
the position which the two men took. 

1941 CTFA approved the constitutional riDendment to 
reorganize the State board of Forestry, (on November, 
1942 ballot). CFPA raport uys there wr.s opposition 
from the U. S. Forest Service and th State Forester. 

Proposition 6 defeated 

. . 

" . . . , -.. . - ^ ^ 

.. .. ... 


Reprinted from JOURNAL OF FORESTRY, 
Vol. XXX, No. 8, December, 1932 

Krport on the California Stale Labor 
Camps. By S. Rexford Black. Cali 
fornia State Unemployment Commis 
sion, San Francisco, California. 1932. 
47 pages. 

A copy of this report by S. R. Black, 
should be in the hands of every Gover 
nor in the country and those other officers 
and private individuals who are con 
cerned with or interested in the allevia 
tion of unemployment. It describes how 
California reduced the length of its bread 
line by sending some of its unemployed 
to publicly-operated labor camps in the 
forests where the men were given shelter, 
subsistence, clothing and tobacco in re 
turn fpr a maximum of six hours work 
each day. The plan was admittedly an 
experiment and only about 3300 men 
wore cared for, but it was such a success 
that it will be placed in operation again 
tills winter on an enlarged scale. 

The underlying theory of the California 
plan is that the average unemployed man 
is willing to work if given the chance 
and that if he cannot work for a wage 
lie is willing to work at least for his bed 
and board. 

California had to meet the problem of 
caring for, not only its own unemployed, 
1 ut in addition a horde from other states 
that doubtless was lured on by the pros 
pect of a more equable winter climate. 

In all, 28 forestry camps and 2 high 
way camps were operated. The men in 
the forestry camps built 504 miles of fire 
breaks and roads in addition to other mis 
cellaneous fire hazard reduction work 
such as cleaning up inflammable debris 
around recreation sites, along highways, 
etc. A total of 200,399 man-days relief 

in the forestry camps cost the state $109,- 
893 or approximately 55 cents per man 
per day. The men were recruited through 
various charitable agencies in the cities. 
"Only volunteers were accepted in the 
camps, but after reaching camp, each man 
was required to work, or leave." The 
men were housed in tents in some cases 
and in others in buildings such as unused 
logging or construction camps. Medical 
attention was provided through a first-aid 
man in each camp. Food was of standard 
construction camp and logging camp 
kind; camp officers ate at the same table 
and of the same food as the workers. The 
camps were operated from December 1 to 
early in April. 

The author, S. Rexford Black, a mem 
ber of the Society of American Foresters, 
Secretary of the California Forest Pro 
tective Association and recently appointed 
Chairman of the State Board of Forestry, 
served as chairman of the Governor s 
State Labor Camp Committee. He is re 
garded as the "father" of the state labor 
camp plan. The report gives just the bare 
facts of the establishment and organiza 
tion of the camps; Mr. Black might well 
have gone further and discussed their so 
cial aspects. These impress the reviewer 
as follows: 1 

Operation of the camps has emphasized 
some very important factors which should 
be of interest to all concerned in social 
welfare work. The camps took jobless 
men off the streets, away from the neces 
sity of begging and away from the per 
nicious influence of the psychology of the 
disgruntled mob. They gave the men a 
healthful outdoor occupation that kept 
them physically and mentally fit and self 

See also "Camps for the Unemployed in the Forests of California" by R. L. Deering. JOURNAL 
or FORESTRY, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 554-557. 1932. 





respecting. The camps attracted only ,lic 
bcllcr class of the jobless. The genuine 
bum stayed away from a camp where he 
is expected to work; more than that, when 
the news spread eastward that indigents 
in California were being sent to labor 
camps, the real bum cut his westward 
journey short. In this respect the labor 
carnp idea really aided relief agencies in 
sifting the bum from the willing but un 

The camps were models for discipline. 
There was no disorder; very little super 
vision was needed. The camps were self 
governing, and infractions of rules were 
dealt with by the men themselves. The 
men were quite satisfied and there was 
apparently no feeling among them that 
the state was taking advantage of their 
dependence upon it to get work done 

The forest is a huge reservoir of work 
that can be tapped at any time without 
much preparation. Debris piles up, 
roads, trails and firebreaks grow over, 
diseased trees menace others, erosion com 
mences in barren spots, etc. All of this 
requires correction and none of it requires 
any great degree of skill from the labor- 
era. It requires only simple planning and 
preparation and no great amount of 
equipment; its results bring returns in 
reduced hazard at once; there is no in 
creased expense for maintenance after the 

work is dour, anil it can \ni stinted on 
short notice and stopped without loss. In 
these sensos a clean-up job is a better la 
bor project than reforestation. It would 
take too huge a sum of money to do such 
a clean-up job if the cost were to be 
charged solely to the work accomplished, 
in fact it just would not be done. On the 
other hand the public care of jobless 
through charity is also costly and there 
is mighty little to show for the expendi 
ture except that idle men have been kept 
idle, herded in large population centers 
where they become the prey of social 
agitators. Why not combine the two keep 
the men occupied at some work that will 
stimulate them mentally and build them 
up physically and at the same time get 
some needed public improvements accom 
plished. It is superior to straight-out 
charity. Unemployment, especially the 
seasonal kind, is always with us though 
noticed by the general public only during 
business depressions. To give the unem 
ployed a dole is as vicious as to starve 
them. To make a big play at relief only 
during emergencies is unsound. The for 
est can take care of the jobless in normal 
times as well as during depressions. This 
fact should not be lost sight of. It may 
be the solution of a large part of our an 
nual unemployment relief problems. 



* < 









A ft, 



a- -ue, 


- <*-- b 

re, >* & 

. //I J??& X 

3ti/j3s> &**& 2. /e^^y *&* 


A? in t ^ fa >^A//?^A; R J 



Abbott, Lyman, I I 
Adirondack Mountains, 24 
agricu Iture, 

forest lands converted 
to, 262 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of, 
6, 21, 40, 76n, 78n 

departmental reorganization, 

see also Forest Service, U.S. 
Ahern, George P., 174 

Air Arm of the Signal Corps 
(U.S. Air Force), 69-72 

a I idade, 43 

Al len, E.T., 153, 227 

Amador Timber Company, I 18 

American Conservation Associa 
tion, 180 

American Forestry Association, 
34, 40, 153, 166-7, 293-4 

American Forests [American 

Forestry! . 13. 136, 166, 293-4 

American Tree Association, 166 
Arcata Redwood Company, 271-2 

Arizona, 31, 49, 58-9, 68-9, 72, 
79-80, 160, 167, 186 

Arkansas, 27 

Armour and Company, 3, 6 

ash, 129 

Association of County Supervisors, 
Cal ifornia, 245 

Atlantic Monthly. 15 

Averel I , James L., 151 

Bai ley, Richard, 206 

Baker, Elmer, 144, 149, 196 

Baker, Fred, 280 

Bal linger, Richard A., 29 

Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, 17 

Baltimore City College, 3, 18 

Baltimore Manual Training School, 
see Baltimore Polytechnic 

Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, 3, 
5, 7-10, 16-9, 23, 82, 87, 161 

Bancroft Library, see University of 
California Bancroft Library 

Barnum, M.M., 144 
basswood, 57 
Bates, Carlos G. , 174 
Benedict, C.C., 70 
Berry, John, I 18, 144 

Berry, Swift, 74-5, 118, 152, 221-2, 

Besley, Lowe I 1 , 194-5 

Bessey, C.E., 97 

Bethlehem Steel Company, 17 

Beyond the Hundredth Meridian. 32 


Biggar, George, 220, 243-4, 248-50, 
254, 256, 260-2 

Biggar Committee (California, 
Legislative Forestry Study 
Committee), 248-65 

Biltmore Forest School and Estate, 
18, 20, 99, 101, 200, 281 

Biological Survey, U.S. Bureau of, 
161, 170 

Birch, Dwight, 152 
Birmingham, Earl, 146 

Black, S. Rexford, 142, 152, 202, 
208-21, 227, 245-7, 256 

Blodgett Forest, University of 
Cal i fornia, 105 

Bohemian Club, 104 
Bowman, Isaiah, 59 
Boyle, Ed, 109, 196 

Boys Clubs of America, 286 
Breaking New Ground. 30 
Bridges, Marguerite, 254-5 
Briegleb, Phil ip A., 229 
Brown, Edmund G., 208 
Brown, Harry P., 18, 84 
Brown, Nelson, 84, 94, 156, 196 
Bruce, Donald, 79 
Brundage, M.R., 124-6 

Bryant, Ralph C., 23-6, 82, 84-5, 

Bull Moose Party, see Progressive 

Bureau. For all government bureaus, 
see under the names of the subjects 
with which they deal: e.g. , Land 
Management, U.S. Bureau of 

Burnett, (official Hammond Lumber 
Company), 118-9 

Burns, Mike, 248 

Butler, Ovid M., 166, 193, 207 

CCC, see Ci vi I ian Conservation Corps 

California, 14, 30-1, 37, 39, 42, 44, 
68, 74-5, 79-81, 88, 96, 99-100, 104, 
107-16, 121, 138-41, 151-2, 161, 
208-12, 217, 239-40, 273-4, 276, 283 

and the U;S. Forest Service, 117, 

140, 209-14, 219-20 
California Forest Practice Act, 

242-57, 260-3, 271 
Douglas fir logging, 39, 141, 265-9 
Fish and Game Commission, 259 
Legislative Forestry Study 

Committee, 250-7 
northern, 210-11, 271 
redwood state parks, 136-8 
southern, 210-4, 216, 250, 262 
State Board of Equalization, 257 
State Board of Forestry, 208-22, 

242-9, 254-, 260-3 

see a I so redwood industry; redwood 
forest; University of California 

California Coast Redwood, an Annotated 
Bibliography Including 1955. 282 

California Door Company, 118 

California Forest and Range Experiment 
Station, U.S. Forest Service, 117, 
123-4, 126 

California Forest Practice Act (1943), 
242-50, 255, 257, 266 

California Forest Protective Association, 
142, 21 I, 213-4, 245, 256-8 

California Redwood Association, 


and Article X, 141-2 

and Forest Practice Act, 245-6, 

Emanuel Fritz, advisor to, 132, 

136, 272-3 
logging conferences of, 145-9 

Cambria Steel Company, 5 
Campbel I, Donald, 71 
Canada, 37 

Capper Report (1920), 104 
Carnegie, Andrew, 292 

Carter, Oliver, 244, 248, 259-60, 

Chapman, H.H., 169, 207, 224, 
240, 292 

against federal regulation, 76, 

180, 241 
and U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 236-8 
memoirs, 174 
professor, Yale University, 23-7, 

Society of American Foresters, 

166, 188, 190-202, 206, 215-33 
with U.S. Forest Service, 65-7, 


Charles Lathrop Pack Foundation, 

Chrysler Corporation, 150 
Church, Irving P., 9-10 
Civi I War, U.S., 7, 23-4 

Civilian Conservation Corps, 
105, 165, 198, 210, 216, 222 

Clapp, Earle, 75-6, 171, 174, 
179-80, 183, 240-1, 292 

Clarke-McNary Act (1924), 153, 222 

Clepper, Henry C., 175, 190 

Cl iff, Edward P., 229 

Coast and Geological Survey, U.S., 22 

Cockreli, Robert, 278, 280 

Coconino National Forest, 68 

Coeur d Alene National Forest, 49-50, 
55-8, 69, 79 

Cole, Harry W., 146 

Colgan, Richard, 74-5, 152, 221-2 

Collingwood, G. Harris, 194-5 

Col I ins, Truman, I 53 

Col I ins, Walter, 130 

Communism, 91, 175-7 

see also Fritz, Emanuel, political 
phi losophy of 

Conant, J.B., 8, 82 
Connaughton, Charles, 229 
Connecticut, 26, 49, 65, 217 
conservation, 169 

early history of, 16-7, 27, 34, 36, 

European influence on American, 21 

see also conservation organizations; 
preservation movement; timber 
management; Forest Service, U.S.; 
lumber industry; names of indi 
vidual conservation organizations 

conservation, proposed U.S. department 
of, 235-40 

conservation organizations, 27, 34, 41, 

clear cutting, 100, 122, 176, 262, 
267, 270-1 

see a I so names of individual organi 


Cool idge, Phi I ip, 227 

Cope I and Report, see National 
F lan for American Forostry 

Cornell University, 2, 8-18, 20, 
23, 41, 83-4, 86, 94, 99, 101, 

Cornwall, George M., 29-30 

Corporations, U.S. Bureau of, 47-8 

Country Life in America. 18 

Cox, Wi I I iam T., 202-8 

Craig, George, 255-6, 274 

Craig, J im, 294 

Crosset Lumber Company, 167 

Crown Zellerbach Corporation, 88, 

Cruess, Wil I iam, 279 
Cuba, 6 

Dahlgren, Calvin A., 53 
Damtoft, W.J., 196, 200 
Dana, Samuel T., 

at University of Michigan, 94 
Foundation for American 

Resource Management, 284 
in U.S. Forest Service, 65-6 
Journal of Forestry, 157, 160, 

162, 164, 183 
Society of American Foresters, 

194-5, 221 

Davidson, Margaret G., v 
Dean, George, 213 
Denny, Paul, 244, 248 

Department. For all Departmental 
level government organizations, 
see under the names of the 

subjects with which they deal: e.g., 
Interior, U.S. Department of the 

depression, the (1930s), 95, 105, 129, 
164-5, 187-8, 195, 198, 224 

see a I so New Dea I 
Deutsch, Henry A., 223 
Diamond Match Company, 74 
Dickinson, Fred, 278-80 
Dinosaur National Monument, 297 
disease control, forest, 24, 269 

Do I beer and Carson Lumber Company, 
119, 123-5 

Done, J . Robert, 229 

Douglas, Helen Gahagan, 134-5, 185 

Douglas Bill, see Roosevelt National 
Forest Bi I I (1945) 

Douglas fir, 

called Oregon Pine, 131 

forestry practices, 129, 224, 250, 26~ 

in Arizona, 59 

logging industry, 39-40, 129, 131, 141, 

146, 149, 224, 250, 265-9, 284, 

on Oregon and California Railroad 

Lands, 40 

research on, 284, 287-8 
trade association for, 273 

Drury, Newton, 120-1, 137 
Dubois, Coeurt, 152 
Dudley, Ernest G., 214 
Duke University, 60 
Dunning, Duncan, 123 
Dunwoody, Charles, 140, 211 


dust bowl, U.S. middle went, 31 

Drake, George, 1133 

eastern United States, 82, 129, 226 

forestry in, 26, 176 
geology of, 21 
grazing on, 253 

see a I so names of individual 

education, see engineering educa 
tion; forestry education; names of 
individual institutions 

Eggelston, R.C., 49 
El am, A.W., I 19, 144 
engineering, 285 

education for, 7-14, 16-7, 19, 

England, 122 

al idade, 43 

and trade associations, 148-50 
donkey engines, 116, 143 
fire fighting tools, 44-5, 148 
logging trucks, 148-50 
McGifford loader, 168 
torque conductor, 148 
tractors for logging, 122, 129, 

Eric Forest School (Duxbury, Massa 
chusetts), 43 

eucalyptus, 116, 128-9 

European forestry, 86, 97-103, 293 

influence on America, 21-2, 30-1, 
33-4, 83-4, 86, 98-101, 154 

Evenden, J im, 53 

F. Knapp Institute, 7-8 

F.A.R.M., see Foundation for American 
Resource Management 

fedora I regulation of private forestry, 
37-8, 76-8, 92, 104, 117, 138, 152, 
174-5, 179-82, 185-8, 190-1, 216, 
220, 225, 238-41, 257-8 

Fernow, B.E., 13-4, 86, 98-101, 157-9, 
183, 204 

Fernow, Fritz, 14 
fir, 59 

see also Douglas fir 

controlled burning, 26-7, 213, 267-8 

education in prevention, 87 

federal prevention work, 43-4, 50-1, 

forest fires, 44, 50-2, 57, 69, 100, 

I 12,129,138-9,21 1,213,250,269 
lookout stations, 43,45-6,50-1,58-9,61 
mapping, 43, 45-6, 54, 58-9, 61 
prevention, 26-7, 43-6, 50, 57-9, 87, 1 53, 


private protection associations, 21 1 ,21 3 
slash disposal , 267 

state prevention programs, 43-5,210-11 
suppression, 43-5, 50-1,57-9,145,148, 


Fletcher, Ed, 244, 259-60, 262 
Florida, 80 
Foley, John, 206 

Forest Conservancy Districts Act, 
Maryland (1943), 258-9, 263 

forest economics, 85-6, 102-3, III, 113, 
I 19, 125, 128, 155, 167, 169, 226, 
271, 291 

Forest Economics, 86 

forest engineering, see engineering 

Forest History, v, 174 


Forest History Society, i, ii, v 

forest mapping, 43, 45-6, 54, 58-9, 

Forest Practice Act, California 
(1945), 39, 242-73 

Forest Practice Rules Committee, 
California, 267, 270 

Forest Products Journal, 161 

Forest Products Laboratory, 

University of California, 155, 
274-80, 286 

Forest Products Research Society, 
153, 233 

Forest Products Laboratory, 

Madison, Wisconsin, U.S. Forest 
Service, 90,. 152, 233, 273, 278 

forest research, 155, 246, 265-7, 
275-8, 281-4, 288-9, 290, 292 

redwood, 108-36 

wood technology, 90, 233 

see also Forest Products 

Laboratory, Madison, Wiscon 
sin; Forest Products Laboratory, 
University of California; Fort 
Valley Forest Experiment 

Forest Science, 232-3 

Forest Service, U.S., 34, 37, 41-4, 
46-7, 58, 69, 72,74-5,79-82,86, 
I 84, 1 88, 190-1 , 194, 199-202,204, 

and federal regulation of 

private forestry, 75-8,92,104, 
I 17,138,152,174-82,185-8,190-1, 

and forestry schools, 75,80,117-9, 

and private industry, 47-9, 74-81 ,90, 

and the Society of American Foresters, 

department reorganization plans, 


early ranger stories, 52-6, 62-5 
early lack of medical provisions, 

experiment stations, 3 1 ,58-67, 160, 


fire protect ion, 43-4, 50-2, 57 
Forest Products Laboratory, I 52, 1 55, 161 , 


fraudulent homestead claims, 55-6 
land acquisition, 121 
state relations, 44,205-17,220-2,257-8 
Sustained Yield Forest Management Act, 

1 38-42 

see also names of individual forests 

Forest Situation in California (1943), 
245, 253-5 

forest taxation, 35,37,40,122,245,257 

Forestry, U.S. Bureau of (later U.S. 
Forest Service), 22 

see a I so Forest Service, U.S. 

forestry education, 16,19-27,32-4,114, 

and the U.S. Forest Service, 75-6, 

dendrology, 22-3, 33 
European influence upon, 21 -2,30, 


forest economics, 23,85-6 
in fire prevention, 87 
in grazing, 82 

in sawmilling, 82-5,88, i 02, I Cc, ! Zz, 273 
in si lviculture,22-3,88 
in timber uti I ization, 24-5, 81 ,83-4,88, 

in wood technology, 23, 81-4, 86, 90, 


see a I so names of individual schools 
Forsl ing, C.L.,223 
Fortune, 18,228-9,232 


Fort Valley Forest Experiment 
Station, U.S. Forest Service, 
59-68, 72, 80, 160, 186, 291 

see a I so Southwestern Forest and 
Range Experiment Station 

Foundation for American Resource 
Management, 281-90 

France, 69-70,74,80,122,154,284 
forestry in, 21,30,33-4,98 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt National 
Forest proposal, 134, 235 

Fritz, Emanuel , 

childhood and education, 1-33, 

instructor, Baltimore Polytech 
nic Institute, 17-9 

opinion of progressives and 
G. Pinchot, 13-4,27-32,34, 

assistant, Forestry Department, 
New Hampshi re, 40-7 

fire prevention, U.S. Forest 
Service, 37-8,42,47-58 

si I vicu I tura I ist,U.S. Forest 
Service, 58-66,79,231 

World War II experiences, 68-74, 80 

professor, University of Califor 
nia, School of Forestry>79-8l.,l 16 
1 24, 1 30-2, 1 40, 1 43, 1 54-5, 1 64-5, 

researcher and consultant, redwood 
industry, 89,96-7,108-19,124-8, 
130-50, 157, 162,234,245,258-9, 

consultant, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, 73, 234-8 
member, SAFj 51 _4 ; | 66-7, 176-208, 

214-33, 236-8 
editorships, Journal of Forestry, 

instructor, Cornell, 162-3 
researcher and consultant, 

and the California State Board of 

Forestry, 228-32, 242-9, 254, 263-4, 

consultant, California Legislative 

Forestry Study Committee, 250-8 

and California Forest Practice Act, 

and the U.C. Forest Products Labora 
tory, 274-80 

adviser, Foundation for American 
Rer-ource Management, 281-90 

pol itical phi losophy,36-8,8l ,91 ,100, 
I 1 7-8, 1 25, 1 36, 1 73-7, 1 83-90,220,225, 

opinion of U.S. Forest Service, 48-9, 
65-6,72-3,75-8,92,98,1 17-8,121,123, 
226,228-9,230-41 ,258,269,292 

opinion of U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 170-1 

opinions on state forestry, 203-4, 

opinions on lumber industry, 79, 1 17, 

conclusions on history of forestry, 

papers in Bancroft Library, 32 

Fritz, Esther Phi I I ips, 57,69,80,87 

Fritz, Gustave,3-4 

Fritz, John George, 1-7, I I 

Fritz, Rosa Barbara (Trautwein), 1-2, 86 

Fritz, Theodore, 3-4, 6, 16-7 

Fruit Growers Supply Company, 88 

Fry, Amelia R., i, vi, 256 

Geographical Review, 43n 

Geological Survey, U.S., 38, 265 

geology, 22-3 

Germany, 1-3,7,86,97-100,154,275,281 

forestry in, 12,18,20-1,30,33-4,97-101 
Gi Iman, H.S., 214 
Gius, Fred, 285-6 
Goodman, C.B., 168 


Grand Canyon National Park, 297 
Granger, C.M. 

and G. Pinchot, 75, 292 
and Society of American 

Foresters, 188,194-5,197, 


Graves, Henry Solon, 21-2,27,94 

Gray, Dana, 149 
Gray, John, 146, 149 

grazing, 212-3, 223, 239, 252-3, 
260, 262-3, 268 

see a I so range management 

Great Southern Lumber Company, 
24-6, 84-5, 168 

Greeley, William B., 47-8, 74, 
92, 156, 219, 232, 292 

Green, Samuel B., 97 

Grondal, Bror, 233 

Guthrie, John D., 68 

Hale, E.E., I I 

Hal I, Ansel , 80 

Hammond, A.B., 71 

Hammond, Leonard, 71, 118-9 

Hammond Lumber Company, 71, 
118-20, 144-6 

Hannum, Warren T., 248 
Hansen, P.O., 229 
Hardtner, Henry, 167 

Harvard University, School 
of Forestry, 82, 102-3 

Hawkins, Elmer, 17 
Hawley, Ralph C., 21-4, 82 
Hearox, Ed, 153 
hemlock, 13 
Hemphil I, John, 103-4 
Hendee, Clare, 229 
Hester, Luther, 282, 290 
Hetch Hetchy Va I ley, 30 
Heyward, Frank, 226 
hickory, 57, 129 
Hiram College, Ohio, vi 
Hirst, Edgar C., 41, 43 

History of the Forest Products Industries: 
Proceedings of the First National 
Col loqui urn, v 

Hobart Mi I Is, 88 

Homestead Act (1862), 38-40, 55-6, 260, 

Hoover, Herbert, administration of, 15, 
28, 105, 170 

Hoover, Theodore, 105 

Hough, Frankl in, 16 

Hough, Romeyn, 84 

Houghton, Henry, 285 

Humbird Lumber Company, 47 

Humboldt County Forestry Department, 268 

Hyatt, Waldron, 146, 149 

Ickes, Harold, 29, 96, 234-6, 238-9 


Idaho, 47, 49-50, 55, 61, 79, 
86, 116, 147 

I I lick, John, 234 

Indian Affairs, U.S. Bureau of, 
Forestry Division, 187, 234 

Inland Empire (U.S. western pine 
region), 50, 79, 116, 152 

see a I so names of individual 

insect control, forest, 255, 269 

Institute of Professional Foresters, 

Interior, U.S. Department of the, 
40, 93, 96, 98, 170-1 

department reorganization, 234-5 

see also Park Service, National; 
Indian Affairs, U.S. Bureau of; 
Land Management U.S. Bureau of 

Intel-mountain Logging Conference, 

Internal Revenue, U.S. Bureau of, 
115, 121-2 

Iowa State Col lege, I 10 
Iron Trade Review, 15 
Izaak Walton League, 282 
Jackson, Tom, 144 
James, Edward, 107 
Jemison, George M., 229 
Jepson,,Wi I I is L., 116 
Jewish people, 49 
Jewitt, G.F., 153 
Johns Hopkins University, 7 

Johnson, C.R., 108, 118, 127-9, 273 
Johnson, Gardiner, 221, 247-8 
Johnson. Walter, 275-6 
Jordan, David Starr, 104 

Journal of Forestry, 31,76,136,151-4, 

Kaufert, Frank, 278-9 

Kel logg, Leonard, I 10 

Kel logg, R.S., 196, 199, 228 

Kerr, William, 267 

Kimbal I, Dexter S., 15 

King, Wil Mam R., 8, 17 

Kittredge, Joseph, 79 

Knapp, F.B., 43 

Kneipp, L.F., 174, 177-8, 182 

Knight, Goodwin, 208 

Korstian, Clarence, 60,194-5,238 

Kotok, Edward I . 

Forest Service, U.S., 117-8, 120, 124, 

Society of American Foresters, 194-5, 


Krueger, Myron E., 114,142,144,284 
LaBoyteaux, Clarence, 125 
Laird, A.W., 48, 79 
Lake States, 50, 55 

see a I so names of individual states 
Landenberger, Fred, 149 


Land Management, U.S. Bureau 
of, 40 

laurel , 116 

Legislative Forestry Study 

Committee, California, 250-65 

Lehigh University, 9 
Leonard, Jacob M., 244, 248-9 
Lincoln, Abraham, 38 
Lind, C.R., 229 
Literary Digest, 1 5 
Livermore, Norman B., 206 
livestock, see grazing 
Logger s Handbook. 46 

logging, see Doug las fir; 
logging equipment; lumber 
industry; pine; redwood industry; 
timber uti I ization 

Louisiana, 24-6, 69, 77, 84, 167, 

Lovejoy, P.J., 93 
Lowdemi Ik, W.C., 174 
Luf berry, Raoul, 71 

lumber industry, 15,24-6,112-4, 

and forestry education, 85, 97 
and state regulation, 266 
and the California Forest 

Protective Act, 245, 

258-64, 270 
attacks upon, 23,27-8,47-9, 

destructive logging, 252-3, 

government regulation of, 


152, 174-5, 179-82, 185-8, 190-1 ,216, 

industrial forestry, 24,37,42,77,98, 

1 27, 1 38-42, 1 52-3, 1 56-7, 1 66-8, 1 85, 

ins-l^bll ity of, 35-40,252 
NRA, Article X, 141-2,187-8,259,273 
public relations, 139, 145 
relations with U.S. Forest Service, 

timber fraud, 39, 55-6 
trade associations, 141-2, 146-50, 

155-6, 172-3,245-6,258,272-3 
waste uti I ization, 100,112-3,132, 


see also Douglas fir; marketing 
lumber; names of individual 
companies; pine; pulp mills; redwood 
Industry; sawmi I ls;timber utilization 

Lutheran religion, 2, 7-8 
McAl laster, B.C., 214 
McArdle, Richard, 291 
MacArthur, Rod, 242 
McGifford, loader, 168 
McGi I I University, 99 
McGinness, W.G., 229 
McHarg, Charles K. , 49 
MacKenzie, Don, 147 
McQuen, W.A., 206 

McSweeney-McNary Act, see Reforestation 
and Forest Products Act (1928) 

Malsberger, Henry, 226 

Malvern, Steve, 79 

Manary, Gordon, 122, 146, 149 

mapping, see forest mapping 

market controls, see federal regulation 


of private forestry 
practices; timber supply 

marketing lumber, 102, I I 1-3, 

Marsh, Ray, 75, 171, 242 

Marshall, Robert, 94,174,177-8, 

Marshall, Trustee, 94 
Martin, Clyde, 153,221 

Maryland, 5-6,15,18-9,26,44,69, 

Forest Conservancy Districts 
Act (1943), 257-9, 263 

see a I so Baltimore City 
Col lege; Baltimore 
Polytechnic Institute; 
University of Maryland 

Maryland Act, see Forest 
Conservancy Districts Act 

Maryland Steel Company, 293 

Mason, David T., 47, 79-80, 
85-6,97,108-9,1 11,1 15-6, 

Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology, 9 

Maunder, Elwood R., i, v 
Mencken, H. L. , 7 
Mendocino Lumber Company, 108 
Merck, George, 281 

Merriam, Frank F., 208,210, 

Merriam, Lawrence C., 88 

Metcalf, Woodbridge, 107,109, 
21 I 

Michigan-California Lumber Company, 74 

Mi I ler, Herm, 88 

Minnesota, 37, 97, 203-8 

Minnesota Dai ly, v 

Minnesota Experiment Station, 205 

Mississippi, 24, 42, 56, 84 

Montana, 37, 47, 49, 79, 116, 147, 184 

Moore, Bi I 1 , 247 

Mother Lode, California, 251 

Muck, Lee S. 96, 234-8 

muckrakers, 15 

Muir, John, 82, 137 

Mulford, Walter, 133, 180 

Cornell University, 20 

Forest Products Laboratory, Berkeley, 

275, 277, 280 
Society of American Foresters, 177, 


training, 1 00- 1 
University of California, 79-81, 91, 

93-5, 102, 105, 223 

Munns, Ed, 171, 174 

Munsey s, 15 

Murphy, A.S., 122 

National Geographic Magazine, 59 

National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) 
and its administration, x, 119, 124, 
131, 141-5, 182, 187, 240, 259, 273 

National Lumber Manufacturers Association, 

National Park Service, see Park Service, 


National Plan for American 

Forestry (1933), 48-9, 76, 241 

natural resources, proposed U.S. 
department of, 235-40 

Nature. 166 

Nebraska, 97 

Neff, Phil, 53-4 

Ne-ha-sa-nee Park, 24 

Nelson, DeWitt, 208 

New Deal, 31, 61, 105, 179, 181 

see also Civi I ian Conserva 
tion Corps 

New Hampshire, 42-5, 47, 61 

fire fighting, 44-5 

Society for the Protection of 

New Hampshire Forests, 41 
state forestry, 40-6 

New Mexico, 68 

New York, 44, 69, 80, 107 

New York State Col lege of 
Forestry, 88 

Nezperce National Forest, 58 

North Carolina State University, 

Northeastern Logger. 172 
Northern Redwood Company, I 14 

Northern Rocky Mountain Logging 
Conference, 147 

Northwestern Pacific Railroad, 128 
Nutrilite Foundation, 283-6 
oak, 16, 57, 129 

01 iver, T.K., 88, 221 

Olmsted, Fritz, 152 

Olson, C.J., 229 

Olympic Logging Conference, 147 

Oral History Association, vi 

Oregon, 29, 39-40, 47, 79, 88, 116, 
141, 144, 153, 219, 265-9 

Oregon and California Railroad grant 
lands, 234, 236 

Oregon State College, 83, 156, 285 

Osborne, Bush, 58 

Outlook. II, 15 

Pacific Logging Congress, 30, 145-7 

Pacific Lumber Company, 88, 114, 120, 
122-3, 162 

Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), 
U.S. Forest Service, 267-9, 292 

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 
Experiment Station at Berkeley, 
I 17-8, 125-6, 133, 231 

Pack, Charles Lathrop, 166-7 
Palmer Lumber Company, 47 
Panama, 29 
Parkinson, Dana, 75, 228-9 

Park Service, U.S. National, 88, 137-8, 

redwood national park, 135-6 
department reorganization plans, 

Pearce, Kenneth J., 156 


Pearson, Gus, 31, 59-66, 68, 72, 
80, 160, 186, 231 

Peavy, George, 156 
Pennsylvania, 44, 75, 97 

Pinchot estate, 20-1, 24, 

Pinchot and department of 

forestry, 28 
steel industry, 5, 17 

Pennsylvania State College, 5 

Pennsylvania Steel Company, 5, 

Pershing, John J., 70 

Person, H.L., 125-6 

Phi I I ips, Roy, 69 

Pierson, Ed, 285 

Pinchot, Cornelia Bryce, 180 

Pinchot, Gifford, 159, 180, 232 

and federal regulation, 74-8, 

92, 104,152,174,180,238-41 
and forestry, 20-4,97-101, 

Grey Towers estate, 20-1,24, 


personal ity, 28-32 
post- 19 10 political career, 

zealous crusader, 13-4,27-34, 


pine, 16,27,37,59,79,121,152, 

California, 81,1 15,122-3, 

Lake States, 50 
long leaf pine, 24 
southern, I 52, 224, 226-7 
trade associations for, 273 
western, 55, 1 31, 224, 273 

Pine, W. Douglas, 268 

Pooler, F.C.W., 73 

Porcher, Frank, 62-3, 65, 68 

Pot latch Lumber Company, 47-8 

Powel I, J.W., 38, 40, 265 

Pratt, Merritt B., 81, 209-22, 247 

preservation movement, 107,115-6,120, 

see a I so conservation; conservation 
organization; names of individual 
preservation organizations 

Primer of Forestry. 13, 21-2 

professional forestry associations, 
151-4, 157-69 

see a I so Society of American 

Progressive Party, 28-9 

Public Domain, the U.S., 36, 40, 97 

public regulation of private forestry 
practices, see federal regulation 
of private forestry; state forestry 

Pulaski, Ed, 52-3, 69 

pulp mil Is, 103, 155, 253 

Pulpwood Conservation Association, 226 

Purdue University, 19 

range management, 223 

see a I so grazing 
Reagan, Ronald, 206 
Recknagle, A.B., 196 
Record, Sam, 21, 23, 58, 82, 84-5 

recreation, forest management for, 


Redington, Paul C., 161-2, 
170-1, 176 

redwood forest, 39,81,89,96, 

California state parks, 136-8 
fire in, 100,108,112,129 
preservation of, 107,115-6, 

publ ications,282,284,286 
research on, 285-9 
second growth, 108-14, 251 

see a I so redwood industry 

redwood industry, 89, 96, 103, 
107-36,148-9,162,21 1,214, 

and California Forest Protec 
tive Act, 258-9 
clear vs. selective Jogging, 


consolidation of, 264-5 
destructive logging, 252-3, 

259, 273 

ki In drying, 108, I 14 
labor relations, 91 
NRA, Article X, 141-2, 

public relations, 139,145 
sawmills, 107,113-5 
second growth logging, 

108-14, 273 
trade associations, 141-2, 



use of tractors, 144-5 
waste uti I ization,! 12-3 

see a I so lumber industry; 
redwood forest 

Redwood Regional Logging 
Conference, 146-50, 155 

Reed, Ernest, 206 
Reed, Frankl in, 

and Journal of Forestry, 31,165, 

and Society of American Foresters, 


rei ores tat ion , see timber management 

Reforestation and Forest Products Act 
(1928), 153 

regulation, see federal regulation of 
private forestry; state forestry 

Rehnborg, Carl, 281-6, 289 
research, see forest research 
Rhoades, Verne, 194-5 
Richards, Edward C.M., 174 
Robie, Wendel I, 274-6 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 
Experiment Station, U.S. Forest 
Service, 229 

Rolph, James, 216, 218 

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 175, 188, 205 
235-6, 239 

Roosevelt, Theodore, 13-4, 24, 28-9, 97 

Roosevelt National Forest Bi I I (1945), 

Rosecrans, William S., 248, 252 
Roth, Filibert, 13,20,22,84,98-100 
Rothrock, J.T., 97 
Routh, Hugh, 102-3 
Row lee, W.W., 18 
Russia, 49 

forestry in, 31-2 
Rydelius, James, 285-6, 289-90 
Ryerson, Knowles, 80, 279 


Sacramento Bee. 208, 213 

Sage Land and Improvement 
Company, 107 

Sammi , John C. , 88 
Santa Fe Railroad, 128 

Save-the-Redwoods League, 
107,1 15-6,120-1,136-7 

sawmills, 35-6,38-40,82,85 
88, 96, 107, 1 13-5, 1 $2, f55, 

refuse burners, 26 
saws, 25-6 

see a I so lumber industry 

Schenck, C.A., 30, 98-9, 101, 

Schofield, William, 214, 221, 
245, 256-62 

Schurz, Carl , 98 
Schwab, Charles M., 292 

Second Redwood Logg i ng 
Conference, 146 

selective cutting, 100,110-2, 
I 17,1 19-20,122,124-6, 

see a I so timber management 

Sequoia sempervi rens. see 
redwood forests 

shelter belts, 31-2 
Shepard, Ward, 171,174,194-5 
Show, S.B., 120,123,127,215-7,222 
Sibley Journal of Engineering, 43n 

Sierra-Cascades Logging Conference, 147 
Sierra Club, 99,137,267,270-1,296-7 

see a I so conservation organizations 
Silcox, F.A., 61,174,184,240-1 
si I vicu I ture,see timber management 
Simpson Timber Company, 138, !4I, 290 
Smith, A.W., 10 

Smith, Herbert, 160,181,189,196 
Smith, Kenneth, 284 

Society for the Preservation of New 
Hampshire Forests, 41 

Society of American Foresters, v,75-6, 

and C.M. Granger, 188,194-5,197,204-5, 


and Edward I. Kotok, 194-5,215-8,222 
and Raphael Zon, 205, 228 
and Walter Mulford, 177, 204 
Division of Private Forestry, 223-8 
Franklin Reed s dismissa I , 191 -202 
H.H. Chapman and Interior, 236-8 
H.H. Chapman case, 221-2,228-33 
Rexford Black Affair, 214-21 
Unholy Twelve Apostles, 173-89,191, 

Wi I I iam Cox case, 202-8 

Society of American Range Management, 223 

soil erosion, see watershed management 

Sound ings, v 

Southern Lumberman. 1 72 

Southern Pacific Railroad, 128 

southern United States, 

forestry, 24-6, 226-7 
grazing, 253 


pine forests of, 152,224, 

see also names of individual 

Southwestern Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, U.S. Forest 
Service, 167, 291 

Sparhawk, William M., 174-5, 182 
Spirit Lake Lumber Company, 47 
sportsmen, 244 

see also wi Idllfe management 
Spring, Sam, 94, 194-5 
spruce, 13, 58-9 
Sproul, Robert, 93, 95 
Stamm, Ed, 144, 153 
Standard Oil Company, 15, 277 
Stanford University, 103-5 
Star-Journal . Minneapolis, v 
State,- U.S. Department of, v 

state forestry, 40-6, 203-5, 

and the federal government, 

Cal ifornia,208-22,242-62 
fire prevention programs, 

Maryland, 257-9 

Stegner, Wallace, 32, 265 

stockmen, see grazing 

Sugar Pine Lumber Company, 103 

Sunset, 37 

sustained yield, 39,138,141,269 

see a I so timber management 

Sustained Yield Forest Management Act 
(1944), 138-9 

Swales, Bob, 130 

Swingler, W.F., 229 

Switzerland, 1-2 

Syracuse University, 18,84,94,279,285 

Taft, William Howard, 21, 28-9 

Tahiti, 282-4 

Tarbel I, Ida M., 15, 97 

taxation, see forest taxation 

Tebbe, Charles, I 18-9 

Texas, 68-9 

Tiemann, Harry D., 90, 97 

Timber. 22 

Timber and Stone Act (1878), 39-40, 
260, 265 

timber claim frauds, 39 
Timberman. 29-30, 43n, 59, 61 , 172-3 

timber management, 41-2,77,85-6,100, 

California Forest Practice Act, 242-57 

Douglas fir, 129,267 

education in, 21-5 

industrial forestry, 24, 37, 42, 77, 98, 

redwoods , 1 00, 1 03 , 1 07-38 , 1 43-8 , 1 62, 


reforestation, 37, 42, 57, 60, 1 07- 1 2, 
I 17-22, 128-30,242-6,260,264,270-2, 

silviculture, 226 

sustained y i el d,39, 138-9, 141 ,243,265, 


thinnings, 103 
tree farms, 36-7,138-41,226, 

see a I so lumber industry; 
sel ective cutting; 
sustained yield; timber 
uti I ization 

Timber Resources for America s 
Future, 77-8, 294 

Timber Resources Review, see 
Timber Resources for 
America s Future 

timber supply, U.S., 36-7, 

timber famine scares, 77-8 

timber uti I ization, 42, 155,239, 

and forest economics, I 02-3, 

I I 1,1 13,1 19,125,128,155, 

clear cutting, 100, 122, 176, 

destructive logging, 252-3, 

during World War I, 74 
early famine scare, 13, 15 
education in, 81-3, 86 
euca lyptus, I 17 
second growth, 108-14,251 ,261 
selective cutting, 100, 1 10-2, I 17, 

I 19-20,122,124-6,129-32, 



shelter wood system, 271 
state regulation of, 245,258-61 
technology of, I 16,122,129, 


see also Douglas fir; lumber 
industry; marketing lumber; 
redwood industry; sawmills 

Times-Tribune. Minneapolis, v 
Titus, Robert U., 196 
Torrey, Bert, 144 

Tourney, James W., 22-3, 33, 57 

trade associations, 141-2,146-50,155-6, 

a I so names of individual associations 

airplanes, 70-1 
automobi les, 107 
he I i copters, 90 

railroads, 52-3, 107, 109, 120, 128 
trucks, 121 

tree farms, 138-9, 141, 185, 226, 268-9 
Trees of North America, 16 
Tugwel I , Rex, 61 

Twentieth Engineers (Forestry), U.S. 
Army Division, 68, 74 

Union Lumber Company, 107-11,115-6,118, 

United States. For all federal depart 
ments and bureaus, see under the 
names of the subjects with which they 
deal : e.g. , Forest Service, United 

United States Air Force, 69-70 
United States Army, 68, 74 
United States Civil War, 7, 23-4 

United States Coast and Geological 
Survey, 22 

United States Congress, 39, 42,44,76, 

United States Geological Survey, 38 
United States Naval Academy, 8, 10 
United States Supreme Court, 142, 273 

University of California, Bancroft 
Library, 32n, 82, 93-4, 150, 162, 
194, 254 

University of California, Bancroft 


Library, Regional Oral History 
Office, i,vi,256 

University of California, College 
of Commerce, 85 

University of California, Forestry 
Library, 109, 289 

University of California, Library, 

University of California, School 
of Forestry, 16,19,71-2,80-97, 
108-10,1 14,132,140,142-4,152, 
154-5, 157, 164-5, 172,221-3,225, 

establishment of, 79, 91, 274 
experimental track for, 95, 102, 

Forest Products Laboratory, 


Forestry Club, 274 
rival school at Stanford 

considered, 103-4 
sawmill ing courses, 82-5, 88, 

wood technology courses, 81-4, 

timber utilization courses, 


see a I so forestry education 
University of Idaho, 56, 94, 279 
University of Illinois, vi 
University of Maryland, 3-4 

University of Michigan, 18, 20, 
93, 99, 162, 279 

University of Minnesota, v 
University of Oklahoma, vi 

University of Washington, 83,156, 

Urania Lumber Company, 167 

Vanderbilt, George, 101 

Van Dyke, Henry, I I 

Virginia, 70 

Vyzsotzky, Professor, 31 

WPA, see Work Projects Administration 

Wackerman, A.E., 167 

Wagner, Roy, 121-2 

Walker, Thomas B., 37-8, 40 

Wallace, Henry A., 235 

walnut, 16,57,111 

Ward, family estate redwood lands, 262 

Warder, John A. , 34 

Warren, Audrey L., 163-4,194-5,197 

Washington, state of, 15,30,39,47,79, 
83, 1 16, 141 ,231 ,233,266-9,277 

Washington, D.C., 28,47,49,58,63,66, 
70,72,80,93,96,1 15,135,152-3, 
163-4,174,182-6,192,222,231 ,234 

Washington University, St. Louis, v 
waste utilization, 100,112-3,132,141,155 

watershed management, 101,1 40,21 1,216, 

Watts, Lyle, 135, 184, 258 

West Coast Lumbermen s Association,74, 1 56 

Western Forestry and Conservation 
Association, 153,. 156, 225-7 

Western Lumber Manufacturers, 256 

western United States, 38,41,54-5,57, 


see a I so names of individual 

Weyerhaeuser Lumber Company, 139, 
269, 277-8 

Wheeler, Benjamin Ide, 91 
Whisnant, Archie, 146 
wilderness, 196-7, 295-7 
Wilderness Act (1964), 296 

wi Id I ife management, 239, 288, 

Willamette Valley Logging 
Conference, 147 

Wi I I iams, James T., 206 
Wi I son, Stanley, 68 
Wi I son, Wood row, 29 
Wing, W.P., 213 
Winnington, Jack, 53 
Wisconsin, 168, 204 
Wohlenbert, E.T.F., 68,121-2 
Wolff, M.H., 49,51,53-4,56-8 
Wood. 84 

Woodbury, T.D., 117-20, 123-4, 
126-7, 215-7 

wood technology, 158, 233, 273 

education in, 81-4, 86, 90, 

96, 102, 130, 233, 274 
redwood, 113, 115, 130 

Work Projects Administration, 

World s Work. I 5 

impact on forestry, 74, 77-8 

World War II, v, 39, 87, 91 , 1 12 .1 14, 121 -2, 
134-5, 138,140,146, 185,224,243,251 , 

Wright, Wilbur and Orville, 70 
Wyman, Lenthal I , 60 
Yager, Gus, 53-4 
Yale University, 192 

Forestry Library, 26,85,230 
School of Forestry, 2, 18, 20-7, 40-2, 


Woolsey Chapel , 2, 1 I 

Zori, Raphael , 224 

and G. Pinchot, 30-1, 75 

Journal of Forestry. 157-60,162,174, 


Society of American Foresters, 205, 228 
U.S. Forest Service, 65, 230 

World War I, 2,36,49,68-80, 168,